HistoryExtrahttps://www.historyextra.comHome of Britain’s bestselling history magazine and award-winning podcast2026-07-02T16:48:11.000Zhourly12000-01-01T12:00+00:00Think you know the Declaration of Independence? These 25 facts will prove you wronghttps://www.historyextra.com/membership/think-you-know-the-declaration-of-independence-these-25-facts-will-prove-you-wrong/2026-07-02T16:48:11.000Z1. The ‘United Colonies’ declared independence from Great Britain on 2 July
Everyone knows that the 13 American colonies declared independence from Great Britain on 4 July, right? Well, not quite. It was actually on 2 July that the Continental Congress adopted the independence resolution authored by Virginian delegate Richard Henry Lee. This resolution stated: “That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States, that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved.” As a result, one Founding Father – John Adams – thought that 2 July would likely become celebrated as a ‘Day of Deliverance’.
2. The Declaration of Independence wasn’t signed on 4 July
If American independence was technically declared on 2 July, the key document – the famous Declaration of Independence – was nonetheless signed on 4 July, right? Again, not quite. After declaring independence on 2 July, the Continental Congress then tasked several of its members with producing a document to explain their decision to the public. Work on this document – the famous Declaration – had actually been underway for several weeks and was first presented to Congress on 28 June. The final wording was adopted by Congress on 4 July, and it was the latter date which was then included on the printed version, known as the ‘Dunlap Broadside’ (after the man given the job of printing it, John Dunlap).
3. 26 copies of the Dunlap Broadside still exist
Around 200 copies of the Dunlap Broadside were originally printed (over the night of 4-5 July) and of these, 26 are still known to exist. The vast majority – 23 – are to be found in the United States in the collections of museums, archives and universities. The other three are in the collections of the UK National Archives at Kew in London. Two of the latter were sent to London courtesy of the Howe Brothers, William and Richard. William was a general in the British Army and Commander-in-Chief of British forces in North America from 1775 to 1778. His brother Richard was a vice-admiral in the Royal Navy and commander of British naval forces in North America.
4. Two Dunlap Broadsides were only discovered in the last 40 years
Two of the 26 Dunlap Broadsides are relatively recent discoveries. One was found by chance in 1989 behind an artwork in a picture frame, bought at a flea market for $4. It sold at auction in 1991 for $2.42 million, and was sold again, in 2000, for $8.14 million. Another – the 26th – was found as recently as 2009 in a collection of other materials in the UK National Archives.
5. Thomas Jefferson wrote most of the first draft
The Declaration of Independence was drafted by a ‘Committee of Five’: John Adams, Roger Sherman, Robert Livingston, Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson. But it was Jefferson who did much of the initial drafting, largely between 11 and 28 June. His draft, which drew heavily on the thinking of English philosopher John Locke, was revised by Adams and Franklin before being presented to Congress on 28 June. It was then further revised before being officially adopted on 4 July.
6. Jefferson’s hypocrisy was omitted
Not everything Jefferson originally wrote made it into the final version of the Declaration. In an early draft, for instance, Jefferson, a slaveholder, had blamed George III for slavery, going so far as to claim that the King “has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating and carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither”. The passage was not included in the version adopted by the Continental Congress on 4 July.
7. John Trumbull’s famous painting doesn’t depict the signing of the Declaration
The most famous artistic depiction of the events surrounding the Declaration of Independence is by John Trumbull. Titled, appropriately, The Declaration of Independence, the painting was first begun in 1786 but not completed until 1818. It was then bought by Congress and placed in the Capitol’s Rotunda in 1826. It is sometimes, mistakenly, assumed to depict the signing of the Declaration on 4 July 1776, but in actual fact it shows Jefferson and his fellow members of the Committee of Five presenting their draft to Congress on 28 June.
8. Most delegates signed on 2 August 1776
In total, 56 delegates to the Continental Congress, from across the 13 colonies, signed the Declaration of Independence. Most did so on 2 August 1776. However, six delegates signed later – Matthew Thornton, who petitioned to add his signature after he joined Congress in November, and five others who were absent from Congress on 2 August (with the last to sign generally considered to have been Thomas McKean of Delaware). The exact date McKean signed remains uncertain, but he probably put his name to the document sometime after January 1777 (and by 1781).
9. 4 July didn’t become a national holiday until the 19th century
The first anniversary of Independence in 1777 almost passed without celebration – the Revolutionary War was well underway, and many Americans were understandably preoccupied. But there were some celebrations in Philadelphia, the home of the second Continental Congress. After the Revolution, 4 July observances often became very partisan due to the arguments between the two political parties: the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans. The Fourth of July didn’t really become a more widely recognised celebration until the 19th century. The War of 1812 – which was fought between the United States and Great Britain – encouraged renewed interest in patriotic celebrations, and then after the Civil War, in 1870, Congress designated 4 July a federal holiday in the District of Columbia (albeit unpaid). It became a paid federal holiday in 1938.
10. Two signatories later died on 4 July
Of the 56 delegates who signed the Declaration of Independence, two later died on a subsequent 4 July, both of natural causes: Thomas Jefferson and John Adams. By pure coincidence, both died on the very same day – 4 July 1826, the 50th anniversary of the Declaration.
11. It inspired the 1848 Declaration of Sentiments
The ideals articulated by the Declaration of Independence inspired many later campaigners and reformers, especially among those groups of Americans overlooked or ignored by the Founding Fathers. In 1848, for example, women’s rights activist Elizabeth Cady Stanton drew on Jefferson’s words to criticise the “absolute tyranny” of men over women. At one point in the text – known as the ‘Declaration of Sentiments’ – Cady Stanton adapted the original text to make a powerful point: “We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men and women are created equal.”
12. It inspired Frederick Douglass to write ‘What to the Slave is the Fourth of July?’
Nineteenth-century African American activists similarly invoked the Declaration of Independence to contest discrimination, and particularly the evil of slavery. In 1852, for instance, the African American abolitionist Frederick Douglass gave a speech to mark Independence Day in which he celebrated the Founding Fathers as “great men” while also criticising their hypocrisy. Douglass was speaking at a time when millions of African Americans were enslaved in the South and were therefore denied the “liberty” so celebrated by the Declaration. The title of Douglass’ speech left no doubt as to his point: ‘What to the Slave is the Fourth of July?’
13. It inspired Abraham Lincoln’s 1863 Gettysburg Address
Many American presidents have drawn on the words of the Declaration to make sense of the challenges of the moment. Perhaps the most famous to do so was Abraham Lincoln in his Gettysburg Address of 1863. Delivered at the height of the US Civil War at a location “hallowed” by the heroic dead, Lincoln’s most famous speech began with a specific nod to the Declaration: “Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.”
14. The British didn’t respond well
According to the historian Howard Peckham, the “first reaction of press and public in Great Britain was contempt for the ideology of the Declaration expressed in its opening” with many commentators seeing it as a “rhetorical attempt to justify treason”. A second British response was outrage over what some perceived as American “ingratitude” for all that the British Empire had given the colonists, especially in terms of protection and prosperity. As a result, much early British commentary on the Declaration was highly critical, although it was welcomed by those sympathetic to the colonists’ cause.
15. King George V celebrated 4 July by attending a baseball game
It took a good few decades before British views of the Declaration of Independence began to shift, but by the 20th century it was increasingly seen in a new light. By 1918, in fact, with the two nations now allies in the First World War and with tens of thousands of American soldiers in Britain, the 4 July anniversary became an occasion to celebrate the deep ties of history. This was the first time that the anniversary was formally marked in Britain itself, and it saw government buildings in London fly the Stars and Stripes flag. King George V even got in on the act, attending an exhibition baseball game in London between teams from the US Army and the US Navy!
16. A joint US-UK bombing raid marked 4 July 1942
The return of American troops to the country during the Second World War similarly encouraged Britons to embrace the annual 4 July celebrations, and there were more exhibitions of American sport (both baseball and football). The 1942 anniversary – the first following the United States’ entry into the war – was also marked in a rather different way: by a joint bombing operation undertaken by the Royal Air Force (RAF) and their counterparts in the United States Army Air Force (USAAF). It involved 12 aircraft in total – six British and six American – and targeted German airfields in the Netherlands.
17. Ho Chi Minh quoted the Declaration in a bid for Vietnamese Independence
The evocative lines authored by the Committee of Five have provided inspiration for several subsequent revolutionary movements. Perhaps the most surprising imitator – given the later history of American involvement in his country – was Ho Chi Minh, the Vietnamese independence leader. Min’s ‘Declaration of Independence of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam’, issued on 2 September 1945 and directed towards France (the imperial power), began by quoting – almost verbatim – Jefferson’s most famous lines: “All men are created equal; they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights; among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.” At the time, Min was trying to win American support for Vietnamese Independence.
18. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr called the Declaration a ‘promissory note’
If Jefferson’s famous words have inspired various 20th-century revolutionaries, they have also continued to be invoked by campaigners in the United States itself. In 1963, for instance, Dr. Martin Luther King’s famous ‘I have a Dream’ speech – given from the footsteps of the Lincoln Memorial in Washington – invoked the Declaration on behalf of the African American civil rights campaign. At one point, he specifically referred to the Constitution and the famous document of Declaration as a “promissory note to which every American was to fall heir”.
19. The sacred document was kept at Fort Knox
Over the past 250 years the Declaration of Independence has come to assume such an important symbolic role in American politics and culture that the text itself has secured almost sacred significance. One consequence of this is that it is always carefully guarded, and in fact during the Second World War it was whisked away to Fort Knox for safekeeping.
20. The Declaration played a key role in the Cold War
After the Second World War, with the United States embroiled in a confrontation with the Soviet Union, the Declaration of Independence played a key role in the Cold War battle of ideas. Between 1947 and 1949, for instance, Jefferson’s original ‘Rough Draft’ of the Declaration was even included in the ‘Freedom Train’ which toured the United States to bring to the people the key documents of American democracy.
21. Planning for the bicentennial celebrations took 10 years
Major anniversaries of the Declaration have often drawn widespread public and political attention. The centennial in 1876, for instance, saw the city of Philadelphia host a huge international exhibition to mark the occasion. But even this was surpassed by the bicentennial events of 1976, the planning for which had begun a decade earlier. Among the nationwide events was another Freedom Train.
22. Queen Elizabeth II thanked the Founding Fathers
British royalty has a complicated relationship with the United States. The wording of the Declaration of Independence specifically refers to the “repeated injuries and usurpations” inflicted on the American people by the “the present King of Great Britain”, and immediately after the public announcement of independence in New York, a large group of patriots tore down the statue of George III in Manhattan (on 9 July 1776). Even so, Americans have also long had a fascination with the monarchy. This was especially apparent in July 1976 when President Gerald Ford invited Queen Elizabeth II to attend the bicentennial commemorations. She was greeted by cheering crowds wherever she went, and her speech in Philadelphia was particularly well-received. In it, she offered her “sincere gratitude to the Founding Fathers of the great Republic for having taught Britain a very valuable lesson”.
- Read more | The Founding Fathers wanted to acquire Canada for the United States. But they made one huge mistake
23. There’s a link between the Declaration and Magna Carta
One of the key historical links made by the Queen during her 1976 visit to the United States was between the Declaration of Independence and another famous historical document, authenticated and sealed several centuries earlier by King John: Magna Carta. For the Queen in 1976 – as well as many other subsequent commentators, both American and British – the two documents are joined by principle and purpose. Notably, this connection, which implicitly celebrates the deep historical ties between the two countries, also featured in the speech recently given to Congress by the Queen’s son, King Charles III. An original copy of Magna Carta was also loaned to the US Congress by the British Parliament for the Bicentennial in 1976.
24. The Declaration has a hidden map*
*According to Hollywood
Given its historic significance, the Declaration has featured in a few films. For instance, the 1972 production, 1776 – which was based on a Broadway musical and was produced in the run-up to the bicentennial – explores some of the political machinations in and around the Lee Resolution on 2 July and the subsequent adoption of the Declaration itself on 4 July. It received largely mixed reviews. But the most famous cinematic ‘use’ of the document is surely the 2004 production, National Treasure. This plays fast and loose with history – the Declaration is said to have a map hidden on its reverse – but it rattled along at an entertaining pace and grossed millions at the box office.
25. The Declaration will have a starring role in 2026
250 years since it was first announced, the Declaration of Independence continues to draw international attention. It will be at the very centre of this year’s commemorations in the United States, while over in the UK a rare and original ‘Dunlap Broadside’ will be displayed at the National Archives in Kew as part of their ‘Revolution 250’ exhibition. A rare parchment copy known as the ‘Sussex Declaration’ will also shortly go on display at the British Museum in London as part of its ‘Declaring Independence: USA 250’ exhibition.
]]>The prince and the brothel: 6 scandals that rocked the British monarchyhttps://www.historyextra.com/membership/the-prince-and-the-brothel-6-scandals-that-rocked-the-british-monarchy/2026-02-02T15:30:45.000ZThe prince, the brothel and a culture war
Katie Hindmarch-Watson describes a sex scandal that consumed Queen Victoria’s grandson
On 7 July 1889, a policeman arrested a sometime telegraph boy, Henry Newlove, at his mother’s house in Camden Town. Newlove had been recruiting younger telegraph boys at London’s Central Telegraph Office to provide sexual services for affluent male clients at a brothel on Cleveland Street. Defiant, Newlove said that he thought it “very hard that I should get into trouble while men in high position are allowed to walk around free… Why, Lord Arthur Somerset goes regularly to the house at Cleveland Street; so does the Earl of Euston and Colonel Jervois.”
Within months, Newlove was in prison and Somerset was in exile. Yet Henry Fitzroy, Earl of Euston, triumphed in a libel suit that exonerated him from any “gross indecency”, and Colonel Jervois received no further mention in police records or the press. However, another man in high position became the focus of speculation.
We still don’t really know why Prince Albert Victor – or ‘Eddy’, grandson of Queen Victoria and oldest son of the Prince of Wales – became linked to the story. Arthur Somerset had been his father’s equerry, but there is no evidence that the two men associated with one another, and no proof has emerged one way or another about Eddy’s propensity for sex with teenage telegraph boys.
The Cleveland Street Scandal evolved from Newlove’s revelations into a morality tale about rich men’s predatory vices, unequal treatment before the law, and the public’s right to private revelations. Prince Eddy was a potent symbol in a class culture war that pitted aristocratic privilege against aspiring youths in a modernising city.
The rumours were enough to spark royal intervention. The Prince of Wales instructed courtiers to keep his son’s name out of the British press, and crown prosecutors used coded language to discuss the persistent suggestion that Eddy was involved. Eddy’s death of pneumonia in 1892 quashed any further need to protect his reputation – but something shady still clings to his memory.
Katie Hindmarch-Watson is an associate professor at Johns Hopkins University
Did Queen Victoria marry her servant?
When the widowed monarch fell for the son of a farmer, the nation was scandalised, says Fern Riddell
Just a few years after Prince Albert died, the widowed Victoria found herself in the middle of a huge scandal. She was accused of falling in love – and even marrying – her Highland servant, John Brown. For the Victorians, the idea that their monarch might be having a passionate love affair with the son of an Aberdeenshire farmer was truly shocking. Their society was ruled by class, and John was very clearly outside Victoria’s.
Her court despised John for his ordinary background, and her government was convinced that he was a threat to both her security and that of the crown. Rumours filled the newspapers that Victoria was mad, and that John was her keeper. Meanwhile, gossips insinuated that he was using supernatural powers to control her and make her fall in love with him.
For 20 years, John stood at Victoria’s side in silence, enduring personal attacks in the press and the threat of violence from Victoria’s public, who believed that he was the reason she was living in seclusion. But Victoria refused to listen to the criticism. She didn’t care who hated John – her family, her court, her government or her people. She refused to be parted from him.
By the time John died in 1883, many were convinced that they had privately married. When Victoria attempted to publish a manuscript exposing their life together, the papers were seized and burned by her private secretary, Sir Henry Ponsonby, to avoid another terrible scandal. Twenty years later, when Victoria left private instructions for her own burial, she directed that she should be buried with John’s mother’s wedding ring on her finger, and with a lock of his hair and his photograph in her hand.
For the next 150 years, John’s family kept a secret archive of Victoria’s letters, jewellery and artefacts about their relationship. They believed that it was too dangerous to expose the truth of their love for one another – until today. Luckily for us, what was scandalous for the Victorians has now been revealed as the greatest love affair of Victoria’s reign.
Fern Riddell’s latest book is Victoria’s Secret: The Private Passion of a Queen (Ebury, 2025)
Edward VIII puts love before duty
The king’s insistence on marrying Wallis Simpson caused a constitutional crisis, writes Alexander Larman
The expulsion of Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor (formerly Prince Andrew) from the royal family has undoubtedly been the most scandalous story that ‘the Firm’ has weathered in decades. But it does not even come close to 1936 in constitutional significance. Andrew is, after all, the second son of the late Elizabeth II, whereas Edward VIII was king – albeit a reluctant one. After ascending to the throne following the death of his father, George V, he made it clear that ruling was of secondary importance to his love affair with the married American socialite Wallis Simpson.
It was a sign of the respect in which the monarchy was held at the time that no mention of that relationship was ever made in the British papers, despite it being common knowledge (and freely speculated upon in the European and American media). Had the king been content to keep Wallis as his mistress, the press magnates Lords Beaverbrook and Rothermere would have continued to keep the potentially embarrassing story quiet.
Yet Edward would not agree to be crowned king in 1937 unless Wallis could become queen. This was impossible for both religious and social reasons, so he announced his intention of abdicating. Constitutionally, this was more difficult than he had imagined, because of the settlement following the deposition of James II & VII, which ensured that the king ruled by consent of parliament. Only the interventions of the king’s lawyer, Walter Monckton, and prime minister, Stanley Baldwin, allowed Edward to quit the throne, assume the title of Duke of Windsor, and marry Wallis.
He left England still well regarded by his subjects, but later revelations about his alleged support for the Nazis irrevocably tarnished this affection. The Duke of Windsor is today regarded as one of Britain’s least popular – if most consequential – monarchs. I suspect that Edward and the abdication will be remembered long after Andrew has become a footnote in royal history.
Alexander Larman is a historian, journalist and author of books including The Crown in Crisis: Countdown to the Abdication (W&N, 2020)
The Prince Regent’s marital misery
Few royal marriages can have been more hellish than that of Caroline of Brunswick and the wastrel Prince Regent, writes Nigel Jones
Thanks to the brilliantly illustrated scandal sheets of Regency Britain, the disastrous marriage of the Prince Regent, later King George IV, to Princess Caroline of Brunswick kept the country entertained and outraged for a quarter of a century.
George, a spendthrift wastrel, was hopelessly in debt. Though secretly married to the Roman Catholic Maria Fitzherbert, in 1795 the prince reluctantly took (sight unseen) a legitimate, Protestant bride – his first cousin, Caroline of Brunswick – in the hope that her money would pay off his creditors.
It was hate at first sight. George told Lord Malmesbury, who had brought his bride from Germany, “Harris, I am not well: pray get me a glass of brandy.” Equally unimpressed, Caroline found her husband fatter than she’d been led to believe. Meanwhile, Malmesbury noted her poor personal hygiene.
Despite drinking for three days before their wedding, George performed his marital duties: nine months later Caroline gave birth to a daughter, Charlotte. But he made his wife’s life so hellish that she soon went into exile in Europe. She settled in a lakeside villa near Como, met (and joked about having sex with) the pope, and reportedly threw parties at which she danced topless.
- Read more | The illness and decline of King George III
George sent spies to report on her misdeeds, hoping to obtain evidence for a divorce. Caroline’s lovers reputedly included a young Italian and – more scandalously still – Marshal Joachim Murat, Napoleon’s brother-in-law and ruler of Naples, at a time when Britain was at war with France.
When George III died in 1820, Caroline returned to claim her place as queen. But not only did the new king have her tried by the House of Lords for adultery, he had the doors of Westminster Abbey barred when she tried to attend his coronation. The hypocritical adultery accusations having been dropped, Caroline was cheered by the London mob, who saw her as a symbol of opposition to the king. Broken by her humiliation, though, she died three weeks later.
Nigel Jones is a historian and writer. His books include Kitty’s Salon (John Blake, 2023)
Georgian Britain’s disobedient rake
The disreputable Duke of Cumberland caused no end of trouble, writes Felicity Day
George III started his reign with noble ambitions: to be a moral leader, faithful to his wife and head of a united royal family. Regrettably, not all of his clan got the memo.
George’s younger brother Henry, Duke of Cumberland was notionally a naval officer but in reality a rake-about-town. A dispute with a courtesan had already dragged him into the newspapers before he hit the headlines in 1769 over a more scandalous affair with Lady Grosvenor. The couple were caught by her husband’s servants in a bedchamber in a coaching inn in St Albans, their clothing in disarray. Henry was hauled into court to account for his ‘criminal conversation’ with another man’s wife.
With revelations ranging from the disguises he donned for secret trysts to the inarticulate and ungrammatical style of his love letters, the duke was made to look ridiculous. A £13,000 bill for damages and costs had to be covered from the Civil List – and, to the king’s further shame, the press was filled with comment about un-princely conduct dragging the nation into disrepute.
Then, in 1771, it emerged that Henry had secretly married. His bride was the widow Anne Horton – a commoner, and daughter of a notorious libertine. Furious, the king exiled them from court, and refused to provide financial support. In an attempt to prevent any further such disobedience, he pushed his government into passing the Royal Marriages Act of 1772, which made it illegal for royals under the age of 25 to wed without the monarch’s consent.
It didn’t stop the outcast couple causing trouble. The Cumberlands set up a lively rival court, consorting with opposition politicians and befriending the future George IV and his eldest brothers – who followed their uncle into lives of gambling, womanising and general extravagance, causing countless more PR crises and pushing public support for the royals to the brink. The determined respectability of Victoria’s court was without doubt a direct reaction to their steady drumbeat of scandals.
Felicity Day is a journalist and author of The Game of Hearts: True Stories of Regency Romance (Blink Publishing, 2024)
Elizabeth II misreads the public mood
When the Queen seemed to stay silent in the wake of Princess Diana’s death, she was seen as out of touch, says Shrabani Basu
It was meant to be a lazy Sunday at the end of the summer holidays. But on 31 August 1997, Britons woke to the shocking news that Diana, Princess of Wales had died following a car crash in a Paris tunnel. Her friend Dodi Fayed and the car’s driver Henri Paul had also lost their lives.
Diana had rarely been away from the headlines. From the Panorama interview in which she famously said that “there were three of us in this marriage”, to the latest round of holiday photos with Dodi Fayed, the end of her fairy-tale wedding to Prince Charles had fuelled tabloid sales for years. Now a pall of gloom descended over Britain.
Within hours of the crash, Kensington Palace had turned into a shrine for the late princess. Everyone from Mother Teresa to heads of state was expressing their grief. But though a short statement expressing shock and distress was issued from Buckingham Palace, Diana’s former mother-in-law remained at Balmoral Castle, 500 miles from London, seemingly unmoved.
The Queen was following the rule book – Diana was technically no longer a royal. But the press reflected public sentiment. “Where is our Queen?” screamed The Sun. “Show us you care,” demanded The Express. For once, Elizabeth had not read the national mood.
Speculation mounted in the vacuum, with some blaming Charles for his infidelity and for driving Diana into Dodi’s arms. All in all, it would become one of the most trying moments in Elizabeth II’s reign, when the monarchy seemed to have lost the plot.
Eventually, an intervention by the newly elected prime minister, Tony Blair, convinced the Queen that she needed to be heard. Four days later Elizabeth appeared at the gates of Balmoral and looked at the wreaths. Five days after Diana’s death, she finally made a live broadcast from Buckingham Palace, speaking as a “Queen and as a grandmother”. The people forgave her, and faith in the monarchy was restored.
Shrabani Basu is author of Victoria & Abdul: The Extraordinary True Story of the Queen’s Closest Confidant (The History Press, 2010)
This article was first published in the January 2026 issue of HistoryExtra magazine
]]>The real history behind Queen Charlotte: A Bridgerton Storyhttps://www.historyextra.com/period/georgian/queen-charlotte-a-bridgerton-story-real-history-polly-putnam/2024-05-01T08:51:42.000ZPeriod drama fans will be glued to their screens this week as Netflix releases their latest show set in the Bridgerton universe – Queen Charlotte: A Bridgerton Story. Created by showrunner Shonda Rhimes, the series acts as a prequel exploring the early life of one of the main season’s most-loved characters – the formidable Queen Charlotte.
It fictionalises the real story of Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz, a young woman who is shipped off to marry the king of England, George III, and comes to realise that things are not as they first appear in the royal household. Polly Putnam, Collections Curator at Historic Royal Palaces, acted as a historical advisor on the series, and she spoke to Ellie Cawthorne on the HistoryExtra podcast about the real inspirations behind the show.
The show opens with a message that reads: “Dearest Gentle Reader, this is the story of Queen Charlotte from Bridgerton. It is not a history lesson. It is fiction inspired by fact, and all liberties taken by the author are quite intentional.”
What is it like to be a historical advisor on a show that that knowingly and intentionally moves away from real history?
It was fascinating! My first task was to write a series of reports for showrunner and creator Shonda Rhimes on Queen Charlotte, George and George’s period of mental and physical illness. As our conversations continued, she referred to this as her “canon”. But she was very clear from the off that because the series is set in “Bridgerton-land” and not the real past, that this was going to be a work of fiction. I like to think of it as historical fan-fiction, because it's been written with a lot of respect and love for the history and great empathy for the characters.
One of my main jobs was to give Shonda information that was inspiring. In an early scene we see the wedding of George and Charlotte, so for reference I showed Shonda a sketch of the ceremony by Joshua Reynolds, which today hangs in Kew Palace. The fact that that scene is so obviously inspired by a picture is really lovely, and there are details throughout which are informed by historical material I provided to Shonda. But she's also had fun with it, and I think that's something that you can't be snobby about. You just have to take it for what it is.
What do you think the series captures well about the real history?
In my job as a Collections Curator at Historic Royal Palaces, I look after Kew Palace, the home of George and Charlotte. It's been amazing to see these characters brought to life, and to be introduced to people like the king’s mother Princess Augusta, who I think we’re seeing on screen for the first time here.
One of the most exciting things has been to see a version of George III that we've never seen before. We’ve only really seen him on screen as an infirm old man, but the George we meet in this depiction is active, young and with a love of science. Probably my favourite fact I gave to Shonda was that he was known as ‘farmer George’ due to his love of agriculture. I told her to feel free to include some sexy topless farming!
So apart from the sexy topless farming, what makes the story of George and Charlotte such great material for a drama?
There’s a shadow of mental illness cast over this story, which I think is often the only fact that people know about George III, and the rest remains unknown.
I think it feels quite relevant too. In the previous two series of Bridgerton, we met Charlotte as this amazing strong woman who has to take care of her husband. Despite the fact these figures are royal and elevated, that's compelling because it feels familiar. A lot of people today care for loved ones, or live with mental health issues themselves.
- Read more | The scandals that rocked Queen Charlotte's court
What was their marriage like before George's bouts of mental illness – they had 15 children, but do we know if they had an intimate and affectionate relationship?
I think so. Within days of Charlotte arriving, George wrote how thrilled he was with his new wife, and one of the things that brought them together was music. Queen Charlotte brought two harpsichords across to England with her, and George played the flute. Music became one of their great shared passions, and in the early days of marriage they were at concerts the whole time.
Queen Charlotte was, of course, a real person. What do we know about the real Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz?
She was not quite as cool as the Bridgerton Charlotte, I'm afraid. But they do have some things in common. The real Charlotte was very successful in her role as queen. At the time that meant being a passive character. You couldn't speak your mind about politics. Your job was to support your husband. One of her main jobs as queen was having children, and she was absolutely brilliant at that – she had 15.
The real Charlotte was also an incredibly intelligent woman. She had an interest in botany from a very young age, and created an amazing series of geometric drawings. That’s why we see her flipping through a book of geometry in one of the scenes in the drama.
There’s an interesting private note she wrote to her best friend, Lady Onslow, where Charlotte essentially said that if women were afforded the same education as men, they would be able to rule just as well. Bridgerton gives us a depiction of Charlotte that explores that idea – what if she had been able to take control in a way that she was never allowed to in reality and become the real power behind the throne?
Although Charlotte had 15 children, in the series we see her struggling to get them married off, and further the royal line of succession. Does that reflect reality?
Yes, there were tremendous difficulties furthering the line of succession. One of the drama’s early scenes depicts the death of the Princess Royal [George and Charlotte’s granddaughter, also called Charlotte]. Princess Charlotte was a much-loved character, and the hopes of the nation – and the future of the royal line – rested on her shoulders, so her death was a national tragedy.
Something that did differ in real history is that, despite living with their parents into their 30s, Queen Charlotte’s own daughters really did want to marry. The fact they didn’t was partly due to circumstance – they were reaching marrying age just as George hit his worst bout of mental health issues and war was kicking off.
- Read more | Was the Regency era a good time to be a woman? The truth not seen in Queen Charlotte: A Bridgerton Story
It's quite difficult to make alliances when you're at war with half of Europe. But I also think that George and Charlotte just really wanted to keep their daughters and family around them. They knew that getting married as a princess was a big risk – just look at what happened to Charlotte herself. So I can imagine why that you wouldn't necessarily want that for your own children, but I think that trying to keep their children close was also a big blindspot for George and Charlotte.
What do we know about the real George III’s bouts of mental illness?
Trying to diagnose specific conditions from historical sources is always really tricky, but what we do get from all these accounts is the sense of a man who is suffering greatly. We know the king had episodes of mania and would speaking incessantly for hours, rambling from when he woke up to the middle of the night, by which time the doctors would bind him to his bed.
There was a physical illness which went alongside the mental illness too – his legs started swelling. And according to the theory of humours which dominated at the time, the doctors would aim to purge him in various ways: by bleeding him, making him vomit, or applying caustic acid to his legs.
We have several surviving sources that tell us about George’s mental health issues and their severity, including accounts from the king’s equerry Robert Fulke Greville and novelist Fanny Burney, and of course, doctors’ reports. But it’s important to remember that these reports are far from unbiased. For example, Dr Anthony Addington was appointed by George IV [George III’s son].
- Read more | George III: why his reputation as the mad king who lost America needs to be re-evaluated
Obviously that gave him an agenda, because if his father was deemed incurably insane, George IV would be made regent and all his debts would be paid off. Addington’s diagnosis infers that the king is as mad as anything, a total goner. On the other hand, there is the report of Dr Francis Willis. Success is good for business, so Willis is keen to stress that the king was getting better under his care.
While the king clearly had a terrible time, this was an incredibly distressing time for Charlotte too. In his bouts of mania, George would talk about the women he preferred to her. For 25 years, being a good wife to the king was the purpose of Charlotte’s life, and now that purpose had been made void, which was devastating. It’s said that during the famous period of George’s illness between 1788 and 1789, the toll on Charlotte was so great that her hair went white overnight.
From the glittering costumes and sumptuous palaces to the gravity-defying wigs, the series looks sensational. Can you tell us about the work that goes into a drama like this?
The thought and the effort that goes into the production is huge. Take, for example, when the production team came to Hampton Court Palace. They put up these incredible awnings and filled the palace with carriages. They even recreated George III’s state stagecoach in miniature.
As someone who works there and knows the rich history, it was exciting to see the place come alive with all the horses and pomp and ceremony. These palaces are places designed for parties and are always best at night-time, so seeing them lit by naked flames was really special.
This series explores the idea of a “great experiment”, in which Charlotte’s marriage heralds in a wave of people of colour being welcomed into the British aristocracy. This didn’t happen in reality, but why do you think it’s an interesting idea to explore in a period drama?
There were about 15,000 black people living in 18th-century London, and it’s interesting to imagine what it might have been like if these people could have had great places in society. But also, there were amazing real characters to draw inspiration from.
People like Julius Soubise, who was in the household of the Duchess of Queensberry where he was elevated and given all the money and potential of a gentleman, and became part of the entourage around the Prince Regent. Or we can think of someone like Dido Elizabeth Belle, who lived at Kenwood House under the care of Lord Mansfield.
The “great experiment” would have really benefited someone like her, so it’s interesting to imagine a scenario in which she could have held her place comfortably in society, in a way she couldn't in real life. There’s an amazing portrait of Dido Elizabeth Belle that shows her as part of the aristocratic household, but not quite on a par with it.
Why do you think people have fallen in love with the Bridgerton universe?
Because it’s opened up the Georgians to us, and made them human. As someone who studies the Georgians, I think they feel like people we could know today. There was a certain sexual freedom and glamorous allure about the era that is captured so well in Bridgerton, and I think that’s one of the reasons it’s so popular.
- On the podcast | Hannah Greig, etiquette advisor to Bridgerton, talks about how the show ripped up the rulebook on Regency romance
Another is that it’s so different from other period dramas. There’s so much colour in it! So many period dramas only use these tasteful muted colours, but that’s not what the Georgian era was like. George III, for example, had leopard print curtains in his bathroom. It was a gaudy era, so the fact that Bridgerton is so wonderfully gaudy warms the cockles of this Georgian lover's heart.
Polly Putnam is collections curator at Historic Royal Palaces, responsible for Hampton Court Palace and Kew Palace, and historical advisor for Queen Charlotte: A Bridgerton Story, which is now available on Netflix
On the podcast | Queen Charlotte: the real history behind the new Bridgerton series
Polly Putnam, historical advisor on Netflix’s new series, delves into the real royal history that inspired Queen Charlotte: A Bridgerton Story. Listen now.
]]>Did the British royal family support slavery?https://www.historyextra.com/period/georgian/british-royal-family-support-slavery/2024-03-25T16:31:49.000ZIn March 2022, in a speech in Jamaica, Prince William vocalised his deep “sorrow” over slavery and the devastating impact it had on individual lives and cultures internationally, throughout history. A year later, King Charles III used the same word to express his feelings, telling a congregation of Commonwealth leaders that, "I cannot describe the depths of my personal sorrow at the suffering of so many, as I continue to deepen my own understanding of slavery's enduring impact."
But this sentiment of regret hasn’t always been the monarchy’s prevailing attitude. Recent research by Suzanne Schwarz, Professor of History at the University of Worcester, shows that members of the 18th and 19th century royal family held different views about the transatlantic slave trade, the practice of slavery, and abolition. For an episode of the HistoryExtra podcast Dr David Musgrove spoke with Professor Schwarz about what we know (and what we don’t) regarding the complicated truth.
How was the royal family involved in the transatlantic slave trade?
Enmeshed within the sprawling institution of the British Empire, the royal family of the late 18th and early 19th century is described by Professor Schwarz as: “personifying the existence of a pro-slavery culture”.
- Read more | Slavery's painful legacy: the British empire's role in the trade of enslaved people
Professor Schwarz argues that the royal family was directly and intrinsically involved in the slave trade, using its power and influence to “defend the wealth and property rights of Caribbean planters, as well as the commercial freedom of British slave merchants to profit from the forced transportation of enslaved Africans.”
She continues, “Based on [the royal family’s] ideological support for slavery and their commitment to defending Britain’s geopolitical interests, they used their individual and collective influence to oppose measures they thought would weaken the colonies, and by extension the British Empire.”
What did the royal family think about the slave trade?
“There were some differences of opinion on this topic within the royal family,” says Professor Schwarz, setting out the context for an internal struggle within the monarchy.
On one side was the Duke of Clarence, who would later become King William IV in 1830, and who was the uncle of the later Queen Victoria. Professor Schwarz explains that the Duke of Clarence was “encouraged” (via expensive gifts) by the influential Jamaica Assembly to maintain his “continued advocacy of their cause in the ongoing debate on abolition,” and hold fast with his position of “support for the continuance of the Atlantic slave trade.”
Professor Schwarz notes in her 2023 article Royal Attitudes to the Atlantic Slave Trade and Abolition in the Late Eighteenth and Early Nineteenth Centuries that Clarence used his position in Parliament to, “oppose measures for the regulation and abolition of the trade, bolstering the pro-slavery campaign through his powerful oratory and the authority and patronage he was able to deploy.”
On the other side was Prince William Frederick, the second Duke of Gloucester, who Professor Schwarz says, “championed the abolitionist cause.” She continues, “[The Duke of Gloucester’s stance] was acknowledged by an honourable mention in Thomas Clarkson’s History of the Rise, Progress, and Accomplishment of the Abolition of the African Slave-Trade by the British Parliament, published in 1808. Clarkson’s History praised the Duke of Gloucester for ‘having opposed the example of his royal relations on this subject in behalf of a helpless and oppressed people’.”
- Read more | How slavery thrived in Renaissance Europe
Like the Duke of Clarence, the Duke of Gloucester also used his influence and position within Parliament to support his agenda, lambasting the ‘misery and desolation’ caused by the slave trade, according to Professor Schwarz’s article.
While these two cousins represented opposing views on the ongoing debate, the ideological positions of other members of the royal family at the time – including King George III - are harder to gauge, shrouded by, “conflicting evidence in the Royal Archives”.
First, Professor Schwarz writes that, “No clear evidence has yet come to light to trace the views of Queen Charlotte and the princesses,” while, on the contrary, explaining that King George III’s sons held a more obvious stance. “None of the king’s seven surviving sons, all of whom were entitled to vote in the House of Lords by virtue of peerages conferred on them, supported the Abolition Bill on its second reading in February 1807.”
As for the king himself, Professor Schwarz found that he expressed apparently contradictory views at different points in his reign.
At an early stage in his reign, or possibly prior to his accession to the throne, King George III penned an essay criticising the practice of slavery on moral grounds. However, these early views didn’t align with his later actions that pointed towards an anti-abolition stance. Professor Schwarz concludes that “on balance” it was likely that the king was “pro-slavery in outlook,” which informed the ideology of the royal institution at large.
What role did the royal family play in ending the slave trade?
Outside of isolated individuals acting in accordance with their moral beliefs, Professor Schwarz details how the royal family strongly defended the use of slavery as a means of preserving the power of the British Empire more broadly.
This position had consequences, according to Professor Schwarz: “the role of the royal family in supporting slavery and delaying abolition had a tangible human impact on the number of Africans uprooted and displaced by the trade.”
Driving home the impact of that support, she concludes, “if we take the period between 1787, the year that the Society for Effecting the Abolition of the Slave Trade was formed, and 1807, an estimated 769,000 individuals were transported in British ships. Of these, more than 76,000 did not survive the voyage.”
The Regency | A short course from HistoryExtra Academy
Member exclusive | Join Dr Lizzie Rodgers for our four-week course on Regency England – from the Georgian kings and Napoleonic Wars to the marriage market and the works of Jane Austen. Explore the course now
]]>Regency Masterclass, with Dr Lizzie Rogershttps://www.historyextra.com/membership/regency-masterclass-with-dr-lizzie-rogers/2024-02-09T23:55:50.000ZView Green Video on the source website]]>Regency Quiz - Week Onehttps://www.historyextra.com/membership/regency-quiz-week-one/2024-01-08T12:11:19.000ZView Riddle on the source website
Explore the content from week one of our Regency course: Regency timeline: the key dates you need to know - reading time 3 mins The Regency era: everything you wanted to know - listening time 54 mins Regency inequality: the gap between rich and poor in Georgian Britain - reading time 14 mins The two sides of George IV: is his wretched reputation deserved? - reading time 13 mins The illness and decline of George III - reading time 10 mins
]]>Regency timeline: the key dates you need to knowhttps://www.historyextra.com/membership/regency-timeline/2024-01-08T11:21:21.000Z16 December 1775
Jane Austen is born in Steventon, Hampshire.
4 July 1776
Just over a year after the outbreak of the American Revolutionary War, delegates from 13 British colonies assembled in Philadelphia declare their independence from British rule and form the United States of America.
1782
The double-acting steam engine is patented by Scottish inventor James Watt.
3 September 1783
The American Revolutionary War concludes with the signing of the Treaty of Paris and British recognition of the independence of the United States of America.
1 January 1785
John Walter publishes the first edition of The Daily Universal Register (later renamed The Times in 1788) in London. Costing 21⁄2 pennies, the broadsheet aspires to be a “faithful recorder of every species of intelligence”, covering politics and trade.
1787
A fleet of 11 ships departs Portsmouth on 13 May, bound for the new British penal colony in Botany Bay, Australia. More than 40 of the 775 convicts on board perish in the filthy conditions en route.
c1787–93
Jane Austen writes her juvenilia – a set of notebooks containing stories, verses and dramatic sketches. The writings feature a coterie of outspoken (and sometimes rebellious) young women, and satirise 18th- century prose.
1789
The French Revolution begins soon after Louis XVI convenes the Estates-General at Versailles. On 14 July, the Bastille fortress is stormed by a Parisian mob.
1791
Toussaint Louverture (pictured below) leads a slave revolt that overthrows French rule in Saint-Domingue (later Haiti).
1792
Writer Mary Wollstonecraft publishes A Vindication of the Rights of Woman, an important early feminist text.
1793
Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette are guillotined and Revolutionary France declares war on Britain, starting a conflict that will rage until the signing of the Treaty of Amiens in 1802.
1795
Austen pens the story Elinor and Marianne, an early draft of Sense and Sensibility.
1797
Austen’s first completed novel, First Impressions (an early version of Pride and Prejudice) is rejected by a publisher.
Physician Edward Jenner successfully develops a vaccine against smallpox in Berkeley, Gloucestershire.
9–10 November 1799
Napoleon Bonaparte seizes power in France via a coup d'état and establishes a dictatorship.
1801
The Austen family moves to Bath, Somerset, taking up residence at 4 Sydney Place.
The United Kingdom is formed on 1 January when the Act of Union (1800), passed by the British and Irish parliaments, comes into effect.
1803
Austen sells her novel Susan (later renamed Northanger Abbey) to publishers Crosby & Co, but they neglect to release the work.
Barely a year after signing the Treaty of Amiens, Britain declares war on France, beginning the Napoleonic Wars.
1804
Napoleon Bonaparte (pictured below) crowns himself ‘emperor of the French’ at Notre-Dame Cathedral, Paris.
1804–06
The US-led Lewis and Clark Expedition explores the Louisiana Territory and the Pacific Northwest.
1805
Austen’s father, George, dies in Bath. Along with her mother and sister, the author is left dependent on her brothers.
Lord Nelson is killed during the battle of Trafalgar, despite securing a major victory over Napoleon’s navy.
1 May 1807
The slave trade is formally abolished across the British empire thanks to a campaign led by William Wilberforce.
1809
After inheriting estates from wealthy relatives in Chawton, Hampshire, and Godmersham, Kent, Austen’s brother Edward offers Chawton Cottage to the author rent-free. She moves in with her mother and sister.
1811
Sense and Sensibility is published. Its author is identified simply as ‘A Lady’.
George III is declared insane and his son George, Prince of Wales is named Prince Regent. The so-called Regency period (1811–20) is marked by a flourishing of arts and culture.
1812–14
Pride and Prejudice is published in 1813, followed a year later by Mansfield Park.
The War of 1812 (which will last until 1815) sees fierce fighting between Britain and the US, with British troops torching the city of Washington in 1814.
1815
Emma is published. Despite her personal dislike of the royal, Austen dedicates the novel to the Prince Regent.
Napoleon is defeated by an Anglo- Prussian force at Waterloo and is exiled to the mid- Atlantic island of St Helena.
1816
Austen’s brother Henry buys back the unpublished manuscript of Susan.
The 1815 eruption of Mount Tambora, Indonesia, triggers a decline in global temperatures and leads 1816 to be dubbed the ‘Year Without a Summer’.
18 July 1817
Austen dies aged 41 in Winchester and is buried in the city’s cathedral. Although Sanditon is left unfinished, Northanger Abbey and Persuasion are published in December 1817, with Austen credited as an author for the very first time.
Explore more content from week one of our Regency course: Introduction to the Regency, with Dr Lizzie Rogers - watching time 10 mins The Regency era: everything you wanted to know - listening time 54 mins Regency inequality: the gap between rich and poor in Georgian Britain - reading time 14 mins The two sides of George IV: is his wretched reputation deserved? - reading time 13 mins The illness and decline of George III - reading time 10 mins
]]>The illness and decline of King George IIIhttps://www.historyextra.com/membership/history-explorer-the-decline-of-george-iii/2024-01-08T09:05:00.000ZStrolling through the Royal Botanic Gardens at Kew on a summer’s day is a veritable assault on the senses. Lush green lawns stretch far into the distance; row upon row of colourful plants and flowers turn their faces to the sun, their many scents rising in the heat. So dazzling is the foliage that it is easy to miss the 17th-century, four-storey red-brick house, small by royal standards which is one of the few surviving parts of the Kew Palace complex.
Although today referred to as Kew Palace, the site was originally known as the Dutch House, with a far more impressive Palladian-style building standing opposite. Commissioned by Frederick, Prince of Wales in 1730 and named the White House, today just a sundial marks the site of that long-gone royal residence.
Life of George III: In context
George III (1738–1820) was the son of Frederick Louis, Prince of Wales, and grandson of George II. Frederick predeceased his father, leaving George III to become king of Great Britain in 1760. He married Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz in 1761, and the couple went on to have 15 children. George’s reign was marked by a series of political and military struggles, including the loss of the 13 American colonies in the War of Independence. The king’s later years were blighted by recurrent mental illness; his eldest son – later crowned as George IV – ruled as prince regent for the final decade of George III’s life.
It is for its connection with one of Britain’s most famous monarchs that Kew Palace is perhaps best remembered. George III, the so-called ‘mad king’, was incarcerated here during some of the episodes of mental illness that plagued much of his adult life.
Born in 1738, almost two months premature, the future George III became heir to the throne at the age of 12 following the death of his father Frederick, Prince of Wales. Raised by his mother, Princess Augusta of Saxe-Gotha, in relative isolation at Kew Palace, the young prince struggled with his studies, unable to read properly until the age of 11, but diligent and keen to learn. The Dutch House became a schoolhouse for the young prince and his brother.
- Read more | The real story of Bridgerton’s Queen Charlotte: from glittering courts to tragic decline
“When George III became king in 1760, the country was delighted and full of hope,” says historian and presenter Amanda Foreman. “For the first time since Queen Anne in 1714, Britain was to be ruled by a monarch who had been born in England. George II had been deeply unpopular for his long periods of absence, so hopes were high that George III would be a king who would uphold British traditions and values.”
At first it seemed George would tick all the boxes required of a good British king. Despite his early struggles he was exceptionally well educated with a deep passion for learning. He had been taught about the arts and architecture by leading architect Sir William Chambers; he understood mathematics and science; he loved music and sport. He was a Renaissance man in many ways.
George married Princess Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz in 1761 and the rapidly expanding royal family took over Richmond Lodge at Kew, with their eventual 15 children housed in various buildings around the estate.
How did George III lose America?
Yet the good times weren’t to last. “George was incredibly unlucky to have acceded to the throne when he did,” explains Foreman. “He was immediately plunged into the political wrangling that was taking place at the time and eventually became a victim of it. He was unfairly branded a tyrant by Americans wanting independence from Britain as well as by the Whigs at Westminster who resented their fall from power on George’s accession to the throne.
“But George was far from tyrannical, even in his dealings with America. He took his responsibilities as king incredibly seriously, agonising over decisions and passionately devoted to his country. The idea that he was an ogre who wanted to suppress the rights of Englishmen and limit freedom of speech and freedom of the press was simply a concept that his enemies could use against him.”
George III’s dismay at losing the American colonies is well recorded. Although he strongly objected to American independence from Britain, he accepted that the way in which the colonies were being ruled did need reforming.
“America is lost! Must we fall beneath the blow? Or have we resources that may repair the mischief?” he wrote in the 1780s, commenting on America’s fight for its independence. But the colonies were eventually lost and, in 1782, British forces in America surrendered.
What illness was responsible for George III's 'madness'?
The 1780s were to bring more heartache for George III when in 1788–89 he suffered his first serious bout of mental illness, widely attributed to the genetic blood disorder porphyria. Symptoms displayed during what was probably a mild attack of the disorder in 1765 had been put down to a period of depression and a serious chest infection. But in 1789, the affects of the illness could no longer be ignored.
- Read more | George III: why his reputation as the mad king who lost America needs to be re-evaluated
Symptoms of porphyria include skin sensitivity, strong abdominal pain and bluish urine, accompanied by psychiatric symptoms, all of which George III displayed. Alongside severe stomach pains and terrible insomnia, the king experienced convulsions so violent that his pages were forced to sit on him to keep him safe on the floor until the fits had passed.
The king’s behaviour, too, was affected by the condition. He became manic, often behaving inappropriately towards women, and experienced hallucinations. On one occasion he planted a beef steak in the ground, fully believing it would grow into a beef tree. On another, at Windsor Castle, the king was seen talking to, and trying to shake hands with, an oak tree, believing it was the king of Prussia. Meanwhile, at Kew, he would become obsessed with, and try to climb, the Great Pagoda, a 50 metre-high structure that still stands today.
How was George III treated during his illness?
To hide the true extent of his illness, George was moved under duress from Windsor Castle to the relative privacy of Kew. With a team of court physicians unable to diagnose the problem, the royal family turned to Dr Francis Willis, who was thought to be an expert in mental health conditions. “Willis believed that mental illness was caused by overexcitement and could be cured by calm and control,” says Foreman. “The treatments applied to the king reduced him to a childlike figure. If he became manic or overexcited, he was placed in a straitjacket (his “hated waistcoat”). He was denied a knife and fork at mealtimes, which meant much of what he ate was soft nursery food that could be eaten with a spoon or hands. The king wasn’t even allowed out of the house by himself and had to earn privileges such as seeing his family or using cutlery.”
George was confined to the ground floor of the Dutch House, and a visit today takes you through some of the rooms occupied during his periods of illness. Shoes echo on floorboards, left bare because of the king’s hatred of carpet when incapacitated. The small, panelled schoolroom at the front of the house was turned into the king’s library, and once boasted a number of works from his magnificent collection of 65,000 books and manuscripts.
In the 18th century, the west side of the Dutch House was connected to a service wing where George III was kept secluded. Most of this was demolished in 1881 but visitors can still see a door in the Page’s Waiting Room that once led to the area where the king slept and underwent treatment.
“During the 18th century, the four humours – black bile, yellow bile, blood and phlegm – were still believed to influence the body and its emotions”, says Foreman. “If one of these humours was thought to be out of balance, efforts were made to bring it back into line. George III’s medical care was strongly aligned with this theory, and he was subjected to treatments that today we would probably think of as torture.
“Arsenic-based powders were applied to his skin causing it to blister – a method thought to draw the illness out. He was forced to fast, locked up, forced to sleep, bled, and given freezing cold baths as a way of ‘shocking’ the illness from his body. Purgatives such as rhubarb, castor oil and senna were used to treat his constipation and cause diarrhoea, while emetics were given to make him vomit, purging him of disease.”What happened to George III during the Regency?
When the full extent of the king’s illness was realised, a power struggle broke out at Westminster between Tory prime minister William Pitt and the opposition Whig party. The Whigs called for a regency, which would see George III’s son, the Prince of Wales, rule in the king’s stead as Prince Regent. Pitt, who knew the Prince of Wales (a Whig ally) would restore his rivals to power, resisted a regency for as long as possible. When the crisis finally came to a head, Pitt got parliament to vote in a regency that gave the Prince Regent as little power as possible, essentially making him into a puppet king.
Within a few weeks of the crisis George III recovered and was able to leave Kew. But in 1801 he suffered a relapse of porphyria. This time the king was duped into a second incarceration at Kew by his doctor, who pretended to be interested in the copy of a self-portrait of Van Dyck, by Nogari – that still hangs above the fireplace in the dining room of the Dutch House. Once there, the king was persuaded to leave his family to undergo treatment once more. Throughout his treatment, his wife and daughters stayed at Kew with him, living in the upper floors of the Dutch House, while they waited for news of the king. These sumptuous rooms were a far cry from the spartan rooms occupied by the king and are still decorated in the fashionable styles of the day.
George had another relapse in 1804 and then a final, full-blown attack in 1810 from which he never fully recovered. Ailing and virtually blind with cataracts, he became permanently insane and finally died in 1820.
“George III has been much maligned by history,” says Foreman. “He is remembered as the ‘mad king’ who lost America, yet he did so much more for Britain. Both George and his wife were incredibly well educated people who played a huge role in promoting Georgian culture, particularly the architecture with which we’re so familiar today. How many people know that it was George III who founded the Royal Academy?
“George III was a passionate advocate of all things British; the mistakes he made more often than not resulted from circumstances beyond his control. It’s high time to reassess this massively misunderstood monarch.”
George III: five more places to explore
Windsor Castle, Berkshire
Where George III retired and died
George III and Queen Charlotte were incredibly fond of Windsor Castle and carried out a series of renovations. George became ill and was confined here in 1788 before being moved to Kew. During his final illness, from 1810, he was kept in the state apartments and is buried in the castle’s St George’s Chapel.
The British Museum, London
Where George III’s books resided
George III’s collection of 65,000 books was given to the nation on his death and a grand 300-foot long room was built at the museum in 1827 to house them. It is now called the Enlightenment Gallery, with an exhibition on the 18th century. The books are now held at the British Library.
Weymouth, Dorset
Where George III holidayed
In 1789 George III travelled to Weymouth seeking the health benefits of salt water. While here, he used one of the first bathing machines to take a dip in the sea. Gloucester Lodge on the promenade became his holiday home and the chalk horse and rider on the hillside overlooking Weymouth bay is said to depict the king.
Royal Academy of Arts, London
Where George III’s legacy is found
The Royal Academy was founded by George III in 1768 to promote arts and design in Britain through education and exhibition. The academy moved several times before settling at Burlington House in 1867. Its first exhibition of contemporary art opened on 25 April 1769.
Royal Pavilion, Brighton
Where a prince regent partied
Built as a seaside retreat for George III’s son, the Prince of Wales, Brighton Pavilion’s most dramatic transformation was in 1815 when John Nash was commissioned to turn it into the magnificent oriental palace we see today.
brightonmuseums.org.uk/royalpavilion
Amanda Foreman is an author, historian and presenter, and the author of A volume on George III for the Penguin Monarchs series
This article first appeared in the September 2017 issue of BBC History Magazine
Explore more content from week one of our Regency course
- Introduction to the Regency, with Dr Lizzie Rogers - watching time 10 mins
- Regency timeline: the key dates you need to know - reading time 3 mins
- The Regency era: everything you wanted to know - listening time 54 mins
- Regency inequality: the gap between rich and poor in Georgian Britain - reading time 14 mins
- The two sides of George IV: is his wretched reputation deserved? - reading time 13 mins
]]>In conversation: Jeremy Black on George IIIhttps://www.historyextra.com/membership/in-conversation-jeremy-black-on-george-iii/2023-12-15T11:29:44.000ZView Green Video on the source website
Watch more
Enjoy this video? Listen to our new podcast series Boston Tea Party: Igniting a Revolution, delving deeper into the causes, tensions and violent origins of the protest
Jeremy Black is a British historian, writer, and former professor of history at the University of Exeter
]]>The real story of Bridgerton’s Queen Charlotte: from glittering courts to tragic declinehttps://www.historyextra.com/period/georgian/queen-charlotte-mecklenburg-strelitz-life-wife-george-iii-regency-who/2023-05-04T08:00:18.000ZQueen Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz and King George III were married for almost six decades. Following their arranged marriage, no Georgian royals were more devoted to one another, but theirs was a love story that turned into a tragedy.
Charlotte was born to the Duke and Duchess of Mecklenburg at the Palace of Mirow, in the small principality of Mecklenburg-Strelitz (now part of Germany), in 1744. Her education was mediocre, and though she learned how to manage a household, she was kept distant from the politics of royal life. Only when her brother succeeded to the dukedom on their father’s death did 12-year-old Charlotte enter court life, but Mecklenburg’s powerplays were nothing compared to the sharkpool of Georgian England.
Charlotte’s future was decided in 1760, when the 22-year-old George III succeeded his grandfather on the English throne. This unassuming, diligent bachelor needed a queen – and an heir – as a matter of urgency. Eager to ensure the line of succession, politicians included Princess Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz on a shortlist of eligible and suitable Protestant ladies. She was reported to have no political ambitions and to be in all regards perfectly pleasant and ‘sweet-tempered’, which was exactly what George was looking for. He chose her to be his bride, thrusting the sheltered teenager into the spotlight. Charlotte was about to become queen of a land she had never visited, alongside a man whom she had never met.
The wedding of Princess Charlotte and George III
After a proxy wedding ceremony in Mecklenburg, Charlotte arrived at Harwich on the south coast of England in September 1761. Vast crowds lined the route to St James’s Palace, eager to glimpse the new queen, and by the time she arrived in London on 8 September, she was shaking with nerves. She reportedly stumbled from her carriage towards the waiting king but, as she went to throw herself at George’s feet in supplication, he caught her. It was a promising start.
- Read now | Was the Regency era a good time to be a woman? The truth not seen in Bridgerton
That evening was a whirlwind. After dining with the royal family, Charlotte barely had time to rest before she changed into her bridal gown (a dress she would wear again two weeks later for her coronation). But at her wedding she struggled with the acres of fabric and piles of jewels; seasickness on the voyage to England had caused Charlotte to lose so much weight that the gown constantly slipped from her shoulders under the weight of its priceless adornments. On her finger she wore a far simpler piece of jewellery: a diamond ring inscribed with the date, which George had given her on arrival. It was to remain Charlotte’s most precious treasure for the rest of her life.
The Regency | A short course from HistoryExtra Academy
Member exclusive | Join Dr Lizzie Rodgers for our four-week course on Regency England – from the Georgian kings and Napoleonic Wars to the marriage market and the works of Jane Austen. Explore the course now
England was charmed by its young king and queen straight away. The couple quickly settled into a steady domestic routine more akin to the upper middle classes than royalty. Charlotte spent hours studying English every day, with George encouraging her efforts, and the couple entertained courtiers by giving intimate musical concerts. Best of all for King George, when he warned Charlotte that she must never meddle in politics and must be on the lookout for glory-seekers, she was happy to obey. Unlike her mother-in-law and the late Queen Caroline of Ansbach, wife of George II, Charlotte had no interest in running the country.
It was the issue of family that most dominated Queen Charlotte’s life as consort; the royal couple took the matter of their heir and spare very seriously indeed. Over the next 22 years (between 1762–83) Charlotte gave birth to 15 children, including their eldest son, the future George IV. All but two of her children lived to adulthood. The youngsters spent hours every day with their parents, whether playing rambunctious games with the king or being quizzed on the content of their daily lessons by the queen, who oversaw their education. Though Charlotte would remain deeply involved in her children’s lives as they grew older, she was not always welcome.
Was Queen Charlotte addicted to snuff?
Many viewers of Regency drama Bridgerton have been struck by a short scene in which Queen Charlotte snorts a substance during a meeting at her court. This is snuff, a finely-ground smokeless tobacco inhaled through the nostrils; the queen was so fond of it that she earned the nickname ‘Snuffy Charlotte’. By the 1700s snuff was considered a luxury product and mark of refinement, and Queen Charlotte had an entire room at Windsor Castle dedicated to her snuff collection.
Inside Queen Charlotte’s court
At Queen Charlotte’s court, protocol was everything. She loved tradition and clung to it rigidly, insisting that her female courtiers wear increasingly outdated court dress, and that the rules of her Drawing Rooms be observed at all times. Although the king and queen were young, they soon developed a reputation for stuffiness. But behind the scenes things couldn’t have been more different. At home Charlotte strove to recreate her loving childhood and oversaw the creation of gardens, cottages and even exotic menageries, turning her palaces, including those at Windsor and Kew, into centres of family life as well as ceremony. Entry to her inner circle (which included novelist Frances Burney and other intellectual women of the day) wasn’t won easily, but she treated her most trusted ladies-in-waiting as old friends, creating devoted bonds that lasted for decades. Queen Charlotte’s private circle was always one of domesticity, rather than politics.
- Read more | Royal enlightenment: the intellectual life of Queen Charlotte
Despite their dislike of show, Charlotte and George’s court glittered. The most celebrated Georgians flocked to see them and amid the rustle of silk court dresses and the flash of the most fashionable jewellery, courtiers sought to make a splash. Whether at St James’s or Buckingham House, the king and queen performed weekly musical concerts and gave entertainments, whilst official levées were held twice a week, with a third day added later. On Thursdays and Sundays, the king and queen received courtiers at Drawing Rooms, where they showed off their family. On one such occasion Charlotte dressed her infant sons in their robes of state and her little daughter in a Roman toga and had them host the Drawing Room instead. Though loyal courtiers professed to be charmed, caricaturists savaged the event. Charlotte would never repeat her playful experiment.
Queen Charlotte’s heritage
Not only was Charlotte an unpolitical queen, but it has been suggested that she may also have been England’s first (and so far, only) queen of African heritage. Historian Mario De Valdes y Cocom claims that he can trace Charlotte’s genealogy back through nine generations to Margarita de Castro y Sousa, a 15th-century Portuguese noblewoman, whom he posits was black. He notes that Charlotte’s doctors occasionally used racially pejorative terms to describe her features, illustrating his claims with portraits in which her skin tone is notably darker than that usually seen in 18th-century portraiture.
Valdes’s research has been disputed by some historians, who argue that the nine generations that divide Margarita and Charlotte render such connections moot. Some also suggest that Valdes has misinterpreted the historical evidence regarding Margarita’s ethnicity, which has implications for his theories regarding Charlotte’s heritage too. Nevertheless, it’s a subject that will no doubt continue to fascinate. Charlotte was recently played by Golda Rosheuvel, a Guyanese-British actress, in Regency drama Bridgerton.
- Read more | Bridgerton: the real history explained
More from us
HistoryExtra members can explore this topic further with exclusive content from our archives
- How to survive a Regency marriage
- Regency timeline: the key dates you need to know
- Regency inequality: the gap between rich and poor in Georgian Britain
- The two sides of George IV: is his wretched reputation deserved?
Not a HistoryExtra member? Explore our latest membership offers
Queen Charlotte and the illness of George III
The happy status quo of the royal marriage was violently shaken in 1788, when George experienced his first bout of mental illness. Sleepless and often violent, he made lurid accusations of adultery against Charlotte and lascivious comments about her attendants. Charlotte’s ladies-in-waiting watched in horror as their queen stopped eating and slept only a few hours a night. She tore at her hair, which began to grey prematurely, and paced back and forth for hours on end, desperately wondering what would become of her. For the first time she locked her bedroom door against the king and kept her youngest children in her chambers at night, afraid for their safety after George physically assaulted his adult son, the Prince of Wales. With court physicians apparently powerless to help, a desperate Charlotte called in the doctor Francis Willis, who had been credited with curing the madness of a courtier. It was a fateful decision.
- Read more | George III: why his reputation as the mad king who lost America needs to be re-evaluated
Willis’s treatment of the king has been well documented, but Charlotte was suffering too. George was her best friend and without him, her nerves frayed to breaking. With the king straightjacketed at Kew, Charlotte was dragged into parliamentary arguments over who should rule as Regent during his illness. Her resistance to the appointment of the dissolute Prince of Wales led to an estrangement between mother and son that would last for years. Once an unpolitical queen, she suddenly found herself the target of accusations that “the Queen is really King”.
Though George experienced a recovery, his illness left a permanent blot on the marriage. Once placid and loving, Charlotte’s demeanour had been forever changed. She began to suffer from depression and developed a furious temper, often directed against the daughters. At the merest hint of George becoming unwell she moved into a locked bedroom and declined any opportunity to see him without another person present. Yet she still protected and loved the king as much as she ever had. When his final mental breakdown occurred in 1810, and the Prince of Wales came to power as Prince Regent in 1811 at the head of a glittering, glamorous court, Queen Charlotte became her husband’s devoted guardian. Yet she never visited him alone again.
The wide-eyed bride of years earlier was gone, worn down by decades of trauma. Charlotte had grown hard, forcing all but one of her six daughters to remain at home to act as her unwilling companions and coming to rely on only a few very close confidantes. She was left distraught by visits to George, who railed at her for having appointed the unyielding Dr Willis, spitting that he loved her dogs more than he had ever loved her.
- Quiz | Could you make it through a London season in the Regency era?
For the last decade of his life the king was secluded at Windsor, where Charlotte oversaw his care and watched him fade away until he no longer recognised her. The queen’s last public appearance was in London in April 1818, after which she was set on travelling to Windsor to join her spouse. Instead ill health confined her to Kew. Robbed of the ability to walk, Charlotte could merely lay in bed and gaze out at her beloved gardens.
On 17 November 1818, as the Prince Regent and her children gathered around her, Queen Charlotte died. Only now did she make her longed-for journey to Windsor, where she was interred in St George’s Chapel. She was reunited with her beloved husband little more than a year later, when George III was laid to rest beside her.
Explore the world of Bridgerton
- The real history behind Queen Charlotte: A Bridgerton Story
- Where is Bridgerton filmed? 5 places to visit for fans of the popular Netflix period drama
- Inspiring Bridgerton: the real South Asian women in Regency-era England
- From balls to Bridgerton: a brief history of debutantes and the social season
- The scandals that rocked Queen Charlotte's court
]]>