The Wild, The Beautiful & The Damned at Hampton Court Palace

Picture taken by me, and it's pretty good for a mobile phone pic don't you think?

Today, at quarter past eight in the morning, the other half and I toddled off to the train station and began to make our way towards Hampton Court. The reason for this was that there was a rather fantastic exhibition on by the name of "The Wild, The Beautiful & The Damned" which I had heard about on tumblr and started going a little crazy about on twitter. The exhibition, concentrating on sex, beauty and the beautifully decadent portraits of the later Stuart era has been on my radar for a very long time. I have loved the work of Sir Peter Lely for the longest time, particularly the portraits he worked on of Charles II's mistresses (and you all know how much I adore Nell Gwynne!) so it was an absolute honour to be able to see some of these very famous portraits in the flesh. And after a train journey full of delays, as we walked through the majestic gatehouse and up the beautiful staircase, I couldn't help but feel slightly giddy about seeing these portraits which I have wanted to see for such a long time.

I was slightly disappointed when we first entered the exhibition to find out that photography wasn't allowed. But then realised that yes, it was probably a good idea because with flashes and stuff...on portraits that have been lent to Historic Royal Palaces by good hearted people who have private collections...the damage could be huge. It is at this point that I would like to thank the lovely Melanie Clegg over at MadameGuillotine for allowing me to use the photographs that she took of the portraits at the recent press day when the exhibition first opened.

The exhibit concentrates not only on the famous mistresses of Charles II (Nell Gwynne, Barbara Villiers, Louise De Kerouelle etc) but also the famous beauties of his court as well as how men were portrayed in portraiture of the time also. I found it exceptionally eye opening, learning how the women of the court used their portraiture to convey innocence, yet there was some pretty scandalous things going on - and despite how many of these women tried to convey innocence through their portraits, they were still called whores. Yet with the men (ala Rochester, who we will come onto later) they were applauded for sleeping around. It really made no sense to me. It was also interesting to read, on the little info boards spotted around the galleries, how at the Restoration court, beauty was everything to these women - they spent hours in front of their mirrors making themselves beautiful, even going so far as to try and dye their hair darker with acid!!

Charles II by Melanie Clegg at MadameGuillotine

Charles II and the Restoration Court made up the majority of the exhibition, as of course it would considering as how he had rather a lot of mistresses, brought back the theatre and just generally having fun. And as you wander through the Stuart Rooms, sadly visited far less than the more well known Tudor areas of the Palace, you are taken on a story - a story that begins with the colourful reign of King Charles II and that of his sometimes brilliant, sometimes frightening mistresses; and ends in the reign of his niece Queen Anne - the final Stuart monarch, and one who I myself know very little about because well...it just seems far less exciting. As well as this each and every portrait tells a story, and there were a couple that really struck me. In the very first room you enter was a large portrait of two men, one of which was a war hero by the name of Holles who had lost him arm in battle. In the portrait by Lely, you cannot see that the man on the left has only one arm. Instead he proudly holds a sword and is dressed in exceptionally fine clothing. Other stories include that of poisoned young wives, and wives whose young husbands died horrifically in battle. Some of the stories were particularly heart wrenching.

Holles & Holmes by Sir Peter Lely 

Barbara Villiers by Melanie Clegg at MadameGuillotine

Nell Gwynne by Melanie Clegg at MadameGuillotine

The portraits of Barbara and Nell were the ones I was particularly excited about seeing, particularly having been so interested in these women for so long. With Barbara in particular, you can see how the Lely portraits of her affected each and every portrait he painted after that - she set the scene, and indeed with every other portrait of a beautiful young woman you can see the same heavy lidded eyes, the same pouty lips an the same seductive blush. And with Nell, she was the first mistress that Charles had painted completely naked - according to the placards she would lie there as Lely painted her and Charles would come along and watch (just for kicks? who knows!) - still, there is something incredible about the portrait of Nell, this woman who started out as a common orange seller, moving onto one of the finest comedienne's of her time and eventually a mistress of the King whose Son would end up with a great title that would follow his family down through the centuries.

Frances Stuart by Melanie Clegg at MadameGuillotine

The portrait above of Frances Stuart was my other half's favourite portrait of the whole exhibition. He stood in front of it for a very long time before turning around to me with a look of awe upon his face and stating that she was very pretty and he understood why ole Charlie had a bit of a thing for her! During her time, her contemporaries were completely in awe of this beautiful young woman, calling her La Belle Stuart and she has even been immortalised as the famous Britannia figurine so often seen on our coins!

As you walk through the exhibition, you are also treated to other works of art including the famous Windsor Beauties by Lely, as well as stunning works of art by other artists at the time including a few by the wonderful Kneller (who painted the lovely Lady Middleton!) - there are also works of art from some prominant Italian artists at the time including Gennari and Parmigianino, who Lely used as inspiration.

Palas Athene by Parmigianino

Of course, any exhibition of lasciviousness and Sex at the Stuart court wouldn't be complete without the appearance of the lovely John Wilmot, Earl of Rochester. That man who wrote bawdy poetry, pornographic plays, had his portrait painted with a monkey and who died of Syphilis. I'm sorry, the man was a legend. I'm not sorry at all.

John Wilmot, Earl of Rochester, by Melanie Clegg at MadameGuillotine

The costumed displays done by members of staff here were also top notch. There were two people playing Barbara Villiers and Sir Peter Lely, and I may have made a bit of a show of myself creeping around Sir Peter and asking him for a picture. Sir Peter sadly refused on the grounds that photo's weren't allowed in the exhibition, and instead I would have to make do with looking on his pretty face. It was pretty hilarious. Anyway, shortly after I was done creeping around him, there was a bit of a show on in a room at the end of the exhibition whereupon Barbara Villiers was getting ready to have her portrait painted. It turns out that Lely was a bit of a dude, who enjoyed dancing around a pretend maypole and making jokes about his favourite actresses and I also learnt a fair bit about restoration dress and how it was boring if a lovely lady was painted in her normal dress, and that silk was much much better.

I have to say, I loved each and every second I spent in those galleries, as did my partner. We loved it so much we ended up having another look at least 3 times before we decided it was time to go home! It was laid out fantastically, telling a story as you went in chronological order. And well, the portraits were just eye meltingly gorgeous. So gorgeous in fact, I'm going again in a couple of weeks. This has actually been planned for week but shhhhh, don't tell anyone...

I thoroughly, THOROUGHLY recommend this exhibit to anyone interested in Stuart England because it certainly has taught me a hell of a lot and I have loved this family since well...forever. I would have loved to organise staying on for one of the salacious gossip tours but alas, time and money was an option for this one. In fact, Hampton Court has gone rather mad for salacious, sexy, restoration court stuff it seems with a special Audience With Charles II next Monday. Again, I wish I was going, but alas, time and money is again an option here. It's made me rather tempted to buy a years membership to the HRP! Oh, and on my way out I also picked up a copy of the accompanying book to go with the exhibition by the name of "Beauty, Sex and Power" which I am very much looking forward to reading, as well as another book on Royal Sex by Roger Powell which looks interesting and ranges from the Stuarts right up to the modern day!

Of course, we did a lot more than just wander around this fantastic exhibition all day. But that is for another post!

Review: The Mistresses of Charles II by Brian Masters

I found this book after doing a search on Amazon for Nell Gwynne, who as you all know is my favourite mistress of Charles II. And when I saw this gem for such a bargain I couldn't resist, as not only do I adore Nell but have a bit of a fascination with the other mistresses too particularly Lucy Walter and Barbara Villiers. And so it was with a sense of sheer excitement that I picked up this book and began to read.

The first thing I will say is that this is quite an old book, having first been published in 1979 and I noticed as I read that Masters said that certain events definitely happened, when in fact they are apocryphal. This may be because he based a lot of his research on some very old sources, including works written in the early 1900's. For instance during Barbara Villiers' chapter he mentions an incident whereupon Barbara bit off the penis of a perfectly preserved priest - despite her many faults I honestly don't think that she would have done this and I have never read a credible source that says she did this. Also with a few of his statements he does not state WHERE he got the information from and indeed this book is not cited very well at all - there are no footnotes as you go through the chapters rather a list of sources at the end of each chapter. Had the work been cited properly then I think I would trust it a little more than I do. Saying that however, I did enjoy this book but I had to go into it with my eyes open.

Masters concentrates on the main four mistresses that Charles II kept throughout his reign, although he is said to have had many, many more; Lucy Walter, Barbara Villiers, Nell Gwynne and Louise De Kerouelle. Each chapter gives and overview of each woman's life, from their birth until their death and describes in detail their careers at the court of Charles II. Masters starts with the first well known mistress that Charles had whilst he was in exile, Lucy Walter. I found this chapter to be very interesting and I know very little of Lucy bar the fact that she gave birth to the ill fated James, Duke of Monmouth. She was the first woman that Charles ever loved and it seems that he was so head over heels in love with her that his advisors at the time believed him to have gone mad! Later in his reign there would be rumours that Charles had actually married Lucy, but these started much earlier and during their actual relationship. Yet according to Masters, she would turn on him once their relationship had ended and Charles resorted to kidnap attempts to get his young son away from her. I won't go too much into it as it's a whole other post, but young James was eventually taken back by Charles and grew up under the care of William Crofts. His mother did not survive to see the Restoration of the monarchy as she died in 1656 and so did not have the chance to see her sons fall from grace in 1685. Barbara Villiers is perhaps the best known of Charles' mistress after Nell Gwynne and from the get go we get a sense of Barbara's lust for power, her greed. She wanted Charles all to herself and often conspired against others at court, including the Queen and Clarendon. She always tried to outshine the Queen and Charles' other mistresses, showing up to events in much much more jewellery than them. As I read through this chapter I must say I felt so, so sorry for Queen Catherine of Braganza - she showed up at Charles' court completely naive in the ways of the world, only to have his mistress shoved in her face from the get go. Is it any wonder she at first refused to have Barbara join her bedchamber? And any wonder she spent so much time on her own? If I am brutally honest, whilst I find Barbara Villiers utterly fascinating, I can't help but dislike her an awful lot. This is a woman who was so, so greedy that she ended up pulling down Nonsuch Palace to pay off her gambling debts. She may have had Charles wrapped around her little finger for much of her life but she ended her own life almost penniless, having married a man who squandered most of her fortune. We then come onto Nell Gwynne, my favourite mistress. I have covered Nell and her life in great detail in previous posts so won't go too much into detail here but I couldn't help but notice that Masters spends very little time in discussing the arguments of the place of Nell's birth (It must be London because she's known as a cockney in the public eye...) and totally discarding the other arguments. There is also no mention of the year of her birth either and the debate surrounding it. But never mind. Despite this, I thoroughly enjoyed reading her chapter and found myself giggling at some of her exploits, how she always tried to pull one over on Louise De Kerouelle. Nell was the mistress who made Charles laugh and who asked for very little in return. Last but not least were the chapters on Louise De Kerouelle, a young woman first brought into Charles' notice during a visit from his sister Minette. Charles wanted Louise to stay in England but Minette said no. However after Minette's death, Louise came back to England and became Charles II's mistress. She was also the go between between England and France, a spy if you will. By this point in the book, I found my interest waning somewhat. I have never been overly fond of Louise due to the fact that she thought so highly of herself, came across as a bit of a snob and was able to turn her tears on and off at will. And like Barbara she had a lust for power and position, and was somewhat greedy. She had no much given to her from Charles because she believed it was her right and for all intents and purposes lived like a Queen. But like Barbara, she ended her own life in heaps of debt and had to keep running from her creditors (she relied on Louis XIV to keep them at bay) yet she died at the exceptional age of 85 years old.

This book did flow nicely, and the style of writing was very easy to follow. It was an easy read, although I would have liked to know more about Lucy and Barbara in particular it would be very difficult to write more about these women without heading into speculation (somewhat like Beauclerk's "biography" of Nell Gwynne!) which never comes across well in a history book. I would certainly recommend this to anyone interest in the mistresses of Charles II as it is a good starting point, but I would also recommend reading more on these women also as since this was published there has been a lot more work done on these women. Still, a good read and recommended.

Inspirations from History: Nell Gwynne (Part 3 - Mistress to a King)

In my previous post on Nell, I spoke briefly about her career in the theatre and how she caught the eye of Charles II. Now I will concentrate on her years spent as Charles II's mistress, her life at court and her relationship with the other mistresses.

"Pray good people, be civil! I am the protestant whore!" is the famous quote, as Nell climbed out of the coach loaned to her by Louise De Keroualle to face a mob surrounding it. They thought she was Louise, due to the fact that the coach had Louise's device on the doors. Yet as Nell emerged the crowd quietened, and began to shout words of support to her. She was certainly popular, and not afraid to admit who she was and what she was.

Before we go into details on Nell's life as mistress to Charles II, it's important to put her into context with Charles II's other women. In particular I want to mention Barbara Villiers and Louise De Kerouelle - both of these women have gone down in history as women who were power hungry, women who got their own way and knew how to wrap Charles around their little fingers. With Barbara I am certainly of the belief that she wanted power, money and status, and she knew how to get her own way. As the mother of many of Charles' bastards, there came a point where she wanted status for them too and there is a wonderful story of her threatening to dash her son's brains out on the floor in front of Charles unless he have the child a title. Nell also did something of the sort, jealous that both Barbara and Louise's sons had been elevated. She hung her son - she hung little Charles Beauclerk (born in 1670) out of the window threatening to drop him unless the King granted her child a title. Charles, below was shocked and shouted out, "God save the Earl of Burford". Barbara Villiers was also notoriously greedy, demanding land from Charles and then selling it off so she could pay off her gambling debts - Charles gave her Nonsuch Palace (the beautiful palace built by Henry VIII) and she sold the land and building materials off, destroying the palace in the process (The Friends of Whitehall 2007). Barbara never changed it seems, and remained controversial until her death. According to Hopkins she "grew old disgracefully" and married Major-General Robert Fielding who gambled away her fortune. She died on 9th October 1709.

Louise De Kerouelle was not quite so bad, however she still had that lust for power and status. Louise, french and Catholic, knew she had to rule the King as if she were his Queen and knew how to do so, knowing that his own Queen was no threat whatsoever. However Louise was the jealous type, and could not tolerate the other mistresses. She would outshine all others, knowing that Barbara Villiers was past it and she believed that Nell was just a passing fancy of the king - in her mind, class would outshine class and she would come out on top. But her way of getting things was to turn on the tears, and she had many, MANY bouts of public uncontrollable sobbing. It was this that made Charles take refuge with Nell, she was down to earth and could make him laugh. Not only that, she rarely asked for anything. With Nell, what you saw was what you got.

So what was so different about Nell? First and foremost, she could make the king laugh and there are many examples of her doing so (in particular when it came to her making fun of Louise!). One such example comes from December 1674 when Louise went into a great period of mourning for the Chevalier De Rohan (a man from an ancient and noble French family). Despite not being related, Louise believed she had the right to go into mourning for this man due to her own ancient nobility. The next day Nell entered the court dressed in black, crying and moaning. She was asked by a confused courtier in front of the King and Louise what was wrong and Louise answered, "Why, have you not heard of my loss in the death of the Cham of Tartary?". The Courtier the asked what relation this man was to Nell and she replied, "Oh, exactly the same relation that the Chevalier de Rohan was to Cartwheel". You can imagine a certain wicked twinkle in her eye as she said it. The comment made the King burst into laughter. And this was not the first time Nell would do things like this to Louise, whenever Louise went into mourning for a member of the nobility she had no relation to - for instance when Louise went into mourning over the death of the King of Sweden, Nelly arrived dressed in black again for the death of the king of Portugal. She then suggested that they should divide the world in two, and Louise could have the northern hemisphere whilst she would have the south. Of course the King found this particularly funny.

During Nell's time at court she also spent a lot less than the others. Her annual expenditure was about £60,000 whereas both Barbara and Louise's was much more (forgive me for I do not have figures for Barbara or Louise). Indeed, Nelly's annual pension was less than the other two also - she was paid approximately £6000 per year, and along side which she also received wine licences for around £8000 per year, along side other such licenses Hopkins reckons she brought in around £30,000 per year. Alongside Barbara's £2.25 million and over £4 million by Louise, it was certainly a very modest amount. Indeed unlike Barbara and Louise, Nell certainly seemed unphased by jewellery - her only known vice was a necklace known as the Ruperta Necklace, a present from Prince Rupert of the Rhine to Elizabeth of Bohemia (his cousin). Another piece of work she allowed herself was a rather extravagant bedstead costing over £1000, the decorations of which included the kings head, eagles, crowns and cupids as well as (rather morbidly) Louise lying in a grave with an unnamed Eastern pomegranate. An estimate in today's prices has come up with an amount of £250,000, if a bedstead of the same extravagance were to be commissioned. It seems she also had a taste for silver and commissioned many items to have her initials on them, particularly her silver plate.

During the 1680's, Nell had a rough time. She learned in particular that her youngest son, James, had died. He was just eight years old, and had died in Paris where he was being tutored. So little is known about him that we are unsure of when exactly he died, but in a letter filed between 27 May and 2 June, Sir John Verney write's to Sir Raph Verney that "Nell Gwynne;s second son is dead in France". According to Hopkins, Nell was a broken woman following this news, as can be expected. There is very little mentioned of her for the rest of 1680 which suggests she went into a deep mourning.

Nell was certainly very kind to her friends. In 1679, it has been suggested that she aided Samuel Pepys in his release from the Tower, where he was imprisoned on the charge of selling secrets to the French.

There is also a very strong tradition that during her time as mistress, Nell helped found the Royal Hospital at Chelsea, after she listened to the story of a disabled soldier begging for money in the street. According to the tale, taking pity on the man and remembering her own father, she appealed to Charles to provide something for them, thus resulting in the hospital. Whilst we cannot be sure whether this is true or not (there are other versions), it certainly seems like Nelly despite it being of doubtful authenticity. The legend still rings true today however (Please see http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=98497).

Come 1680, it seems that Charles II began to calm down somewhat. By 6th February 1685 he was dead - he had the ports closed to a message could be prevented from getting to his eldest son Monmouth and his brother James was close at hand. Charles converted to Catholicism on his death bed - he also blessed each of his sons (except for Monmouth) and is famously quoted as saying:

""Let not poor Nelly starve"

The evidence is conclusive, both Evelyn and Bishop Burnet, Bartillon and the Dutch Ambassador of the time confirm it.

Following Charles II's death, and his brother's accession Nell found things more and more difficult. Credot's chased her for money and she feared that she would end up in a debtors prison like her father. James II, thankfully, sorted everything for her, and emphasised that she always held the love of the people above positions at court.

By March 1687, Nell was seriously ill and contemporary letters tell us that she was paralysed down one side of her body. By 14th November 1687 the most outspoken woman of her time, the most famous, was dead. Nell Gwynne had her final breath.

In my opinion, Nell Gwynne had the most remarkable life of any woman in history. Her story was that which is seen in modern day fairy tales; that of rags to riches. She went from orange seller, to actress to royal mistress and held the love of a King. She didn't hold his love through her ambition or her greed, but because she was down to earth and could make him laugh. She truly is an inspiration.


Further reading
Beauclerk, C, 2005, Nell Gwynn: A Biography: Pan Macmillon: London

Fraser, A, 1979. King Charles II, Weidenfeld & Nicholson: London

Fraser, A, 1984, The Weaker Wessel, Phoenix Press: London

Friends of Whitehall, 2007, Nonsuch Palace, available at: http://www.friendsofwhitehallcheam.co.uk/Whitehall_Nonsuch_Palace.htm (accessed 09 March 2012)

Hopkins, G, 2000, Nell Gwynne: A Passionate Life, Robson Books: London

Picture sources

Barbara Villiers, http://www.artsunlight.com/artist-NL/N-L0021-Sir-Peter-Lely/N-L0021-0004-barbara-villiers.html (accessed 09 March 2012)

Nell Gwynne (believed), 2012, http://www.christies.com/lotfinderimages/d49427/d4942789r.jpg (accessed 09 March 2012) Many sources believe this to be Nell Gwynne rather than Barbara Villiers

louise de keroualle http://royalsplendourinhistory.blogspot.com/2010/07/louise-de-keroualle-mistress-to-king.html (accessed 09 March 2012)

Inspirations From History: Nell Qwynne (Part 2 - From Actress to Mistress)

In my previous post I talked about Nell Gwynne's birth, the arguments over which town she was born in and her early career. In this post I will talk about how Nell became one of the most famous Comediennes of her day and how she ended up catching the eye of King Charles II.

Nell became an "Orange Wench" in the new theatre built by Thomas Killigrew, located between Bridges Street and Drury Lane, which opened on 7th May 1663. This new theatre was a gateway for Nell to escape her old life, and she was one of the first orange girls in this theatre. According to Beauclerk, Killigrews Company - which later became known as the King's Company - has given a license to a Mary Meggs stating that she had:

"full, free and sole liberty, license, power and authority to vend, utter and sell oranges, lemons, fruit, sweetmeats and all manner of fruiterers and confectioners wares" (Beauclerk 2006, pp54)

It seems that Meggs, now known as Orange Moll due to her work as an orange seller, was an old friend of Nell's mother and two of the three places that Moll had available for orange sellers were given to Nell and her sister Rose.

Evidence that Nell was indeed an orange girl is strong. One incident certainly stands out, and that is a remark made by Louise de Keroualle (Nell's rival mistress), "Anyone might have known she had been an orange wench by her swearing". Rather than being the put down that Louise intended it just confirmed the confidence, charm and ability to talk that made Nell who she was. And to be an orange seller you certainly had to be able to talk the talk and resort to hard sell tactics; and the girls indulged in banter, flirting, promises to carry messages from the audience to the actors and embarrassing or charming people into buying their ways. The job needed confidence and wit, something that Nell had in bucket loads and would stand her in good stead for her career in the theatre (Hopkins 2000, pp24-25).

Nell's confidence made her perfect for the stage and joined the Company in 1664, and was trained by Charles Hart (her drama teacher) and John Lacey (her dance teacher). Hart in particular is an interesting character as he is often referred to as the "great-nephew of Shakespeare" and was seen as one of the best actors of the age. Even King Charles II stated that Hart "might teach any King on earth how to comport himself". Nell made her debut certainly by 1664 when her name is mentioned on a manuscript of Thomas Killigrew's Thomaso or The Wanderer. According to the manuscript a Nelle played the part of Paulina, a courtesan (Beauclerk 2006, pp73; Hopkins 2000, pp40-41). According to many sources, Nell would have been 14 when she first walked the boards of the stage, all of these sources seem to take Nell's birth date definitely being 1650 and seem convinced that the astrological chart is clear evidence of Nell's date of birth (Bax 1932, pp44; History Today, 2011; Powell 2010, 5). However if we take the other date of birth suggested then she would have been 22. But due to a lack of evidence all we can say is that Nell could have been an age anywhere between 14 and 22 when she first starred in her play.

During her short theatre career Nell starred in many productions but her main strength was comedy. So much so that Samuel Pepys, who was a regular visitor to Nell's theatre, commented on the fact that she was much better in comedy than tragedy. In his diaries, he says about The Maiden Queen (a play about two mad lovers which became a huge hit):

"Which indeed the more I see, the more I like, and is an excellent play, and so done by Nell, her merry part, as cannot be better done in nature" (Hopkins 2000, 62)

Indeed, King Charles was also a big fan of the play and "graced it with the title of his play". Was this when Nelly first caught his eye?

It was after Nell briefly left the Company and moved to Epsom with her lover Buckhurst that things really started picking up for her. She left for Epsom in July 1667 but was back in London 6 weeks later and back on the stage. And by the time Nelly was starting to perform The Great Favourite at the end of 1667 she had certainly caught the Kings eye. Pepys was informed on 11th January 1668 that "the king did send several times for Nelly, and she was with him" (Hopkins 2000, 86).

And even in those early stages Nell was proving to be one of Charles' favourite mistresses. She was not power hungry like his other mistresses were or would be, and she knew how to make him laugh. For instance she came up with a nickname for Charles - she called him Charles III due to the fact that she had already had two previous lovers by the name of Charles. In fact Nell never asked for anything from the King, unlike the others such as Barbara Castlemaine or Louise de Keroualle and in return she got nothing from the King other than his attention, and she was fine with this.

Her life at court was just beginning and soon she would leave the theatre behind. Her wit would make her popular at court and she would find herself locking heads with Charles' other mistresses.

Sources
Bax, C, 1932, Pretty Witty Nell: An Account of Nell Gwyn and her Environment, available through google books (http://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=miku8kxD08QC&oi=fnd&pg= PR9&dq=nell+gwynne&ots=cyAIZk_J7e&sig=
8tka9CtAAyR1SmDJwWXKEWjRUjo#v=onepage&q=14&f=false) accessed 03 March 2012

Beauclerk, C, 2006, Nell Gwyn: A Biography, Pan Macmillian: London

Crow, C, 2011, The First Actresses: Nell Gwynne to Sarah Siddons, History Today (online) available at (http://www.historytoday.com/blog/2011/10/first-actresses-nell-gwyn-sarah-siddons) accessed 03 March 2012

Hopkins, G, 2000, Nell Gwynne: A Passionate Life, Robson Books: London

Powell, S, 2010, The Life of Nell Gwynne: Staging A Legacy, Meredith College (online) available at (https://www.meredith.edu/library/honors/honors2010_Powell_Spencer.pdf) accessed 02 March 2012

Picture Source

Brown, M, 2011, Portrait of Nell Gwynne Uncovered, The Guardian (online) available at (http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/2011/oct/18/nell-gwyn-first-actresses-exhibition) accessed 02 March 2012

Inspirations from History: Nell Gwynne (Part 1 - Birth and Early Life)

Originally I intended to write one long post on Nell and why she is so amazing. However I realised after starting this that it would have to be split up into multiple parts. Her life is so interesting and so full of controversy. Therefore I decided that this first post would be all about Nell's early life and the arguments surrounding her date and place of birth as well as information on her family and early career. Not surprisingly, decent sources on Nell are very few and far between but I have done my best with what I have to hand - the sources get better the further into her life and career at court you go and so as of the next part you will see a far larger list of sources.

Everyone has heard of Nell Gwynne, even if people don't know who exactly she was they mostly know she was an orange seller and an actress. In fact, Nell Gwynne was much much more than that, she was one of the first actresses in England and one of the finest Comediennes, and she caught the eye of King Charles II. Nell was so well known by the people, they loved her and according to various stories (which may or may not be apocryphal but more on that later) she was heavily involved in charity work also. She was, in the words of Samuel Pepys, "pretty, witty Nell" and she was certainly a woman who could make not only King laugh, but the entire court as well.

But who was Nell, and why did she catch the eye of the King, and why did she stay by his side until his death? The first time I ever heard of Nell, or Nelly as she is so often known, was when I watched Charles II: The Power & The Passion for the first time some years ago. I loved her character - this cockney girl who caught the Kings Eye whilst he was watching one of her plays, a girl who won people over and who could make anyone smile. Recently I have been doing quite a bit of reading in and around Nell, and I have come to admire her more and more. She certainly had a remarkable life, and her story really is one of "rags to riches". This is her story.

Nell's date of birth is widely believed to be 2nd February 1650 at a time of 6 o'clock in the morning. This is based on an astrological chart attributed to Elias Ashmole. Whilst Nell's place of birth is left blank many of Nell's previous biographer's seem to agree that the horoscope gives a true portrait of Nell's character - beautiful, charming, witty (Beauclerk 2006, 5). However, in "Nell Gwynne: A Passionate Life" by Graham Hopkins (2000, 5) it is stated that this date of birth is based purely on that one source and the likelihood of someone from such humble beginnings knowing their exact time and date of birth with such precision is rather odd - these things did not tend to be recorded. Hopkin's study of Ashmole's horoscope brings to light some problems - firstly Ashmole was a contemporary of Nell and certainly would have known she was mistress to the King and the most famous lady of the time, and he was a name dropper, and in his diaries there is no mention of Nell or her horoscope. Secondly the horoscope itself does not contain the persons name rather was added as an afterthought and in different handwriting. According to Hopkins, the fact that the place of birth is left blank also causes concern as these horoscopes had to be based somewhere, and why is it that someone would know the time and date of their birth but not the place? The only other date that has been suggested for Nell's date of birth is "about 1642" and based on "The Managers Notebook" published in 1838 - although Hopkins states that there is no evidence cited for this, and most of the information provided in the article is wrong anyway (Hopkins 2000, 5-7). Regarding her place of birth, there are 3 cities which have been argued thanks to tradition rather than any historic proof - London, Oxford and Hereford. The claim held by Oxford is based entirely on the basis that Nell's son Charles Beauclerk was granted the title of Earl of Burford and Baron Headington in 1676 - both towns being close to Oxford. However could this be due to other reasons than respect of his mothers birthplace? Indeed Charles may have respected Burford due to the town being the site of a Levellers mutiny against Cromwell in 1649 (Hopkins 2000, 7). Another connection is that Nell's father may well have died there in a debtors prison, which may well be why Nell was argued to be so charitable in memory of her father. According to Beauclerk (2006, 11) Nell's father may well have been a man named Thomas Gwynne, a man who fought with the Royalists during the English Civil War, and Oxford became the base of Charles I's during this time. London can also be argued against despite the fact that Nell spent the majority of her life there and the fact that she is often portrayed as a fun loving girl with a cheeky, cockney accent. Hopkins shows us that both suggested sites of Nell's birth come from hugely unreliable theories written by Captain Alexander Smith. Hereford really seems like the most likely and the town goes to huge lengths to promote Nelly as their own and the town is hugely awash with evidence. Albeit circumstantial in many respects it certainly speaks volumes - for example Pipewell Street where she was supposedly born was renamed Gwynne Street in 1855; and Nell's Grandson Dr James Beauclerk was bishop of Hereford for 40 years during which he did not dismiss the claims and surely had he not believed it then he would have said something? However the Bishop mentions nothing of it in any of his writings so perhaps this may be a step too far. It is also said that James brought the house where Nell was born and had it pulled down to make more space in ground owned by the church. However whilst the records show this land was owned by the church, the house was demolished at some point between 1858 and 1859, a good few years after the death of Nell's grandson! A plaque was fixed on the outer face of the garden wall surrounding the grounds commemorating the birthplace of Nell Gwynne, and Hopkin's makes a remark that certainly rings true; "it would still appear to be a brave move by any member of the clergy, let alone a bishop, to promote the birthplace of such a notorious courtesan. Unless of course, there was a convincing historical reason to do so" (Hopkins 2000, 10). Maybe this is why the plaque mentioned her role in the founding of Chelsea Hospital, although in the original plaque her date of death was incorrect, showing 1691 instead of 1687 - and indeed her role in founding the hospital is questionable. The original plaque was vandalised and replaced with the circular plaque that can be seen today.

Whether Nell was born in 1642 or 1650 and whether she was born in London, Oxford or Hereford she was certainly born into an uncertain time, into a country that was split apart by Civil War. Surviving records of the time have not survived well and certainly parish records were often not kept well enough to survive the years. Of course, if a record of Nell's birth could be found it would settle the debate once and for all. I have to say that I agree more with Hopkins' argument that Hereford is the more likely, despite still being clouded by doubt and circumstantial evidence. The argument put forward by Beauclerk just does not ring true and is based much more on conjecture than the arguments given by Hopkins. Beauclerk argues that Oxford is the more likely birth place due to its links with Nell's supposed father being held in the debtors prison in the town and his links to the royalist army, as well as Nell's sister Rose stating in a petition for bail that her father had "lost all he had in service to the late king", and that it is likely following his death that Nell's mother took the girls back to London (Beauclerk 2006, 12)

What of Nell's early life? It seems according to both works by Hopkins and Beauclerk that not too much can be said about it as we have very little to go on. Indeed Beauclerk seems intents with making wild guesses about a little girl who would have run around causing trouble in the slums of London, seeming to know exactly what she would have thought and what she would have dreamed about. In fact, there is a whole chapter which seemed dedicated to young Nelly dreaming about her future with the King including lines such as "Nell would have been in her element" and "she would have had little difficulty procuring a pair of stilts on which to tilter out onto The Strand...and the little girl on stilts would have rejoiced to stand level with the man who would one day share the secrets of her soul"(Beauclerk 2006, 12). We cannot make assumptions like this on Nell's early life, instead we must look at the evidence and Hopkins does this much more convincingly. For instance his chapters on Nell's family and early life give good discussion into how Nell fit into the historical world around her rather than making assumptions. For instance, Hopkins tells us that Nell's mother Helena worked in various brothels and taverns, and that she died after having drowned whilst drunk and that we can get a good idea of Nell's early career thanks to plays written (possibly) by John Lacey, who knew Nell well, in 1677:

"To whose employment was with open throat

To cry fresh herrings, even at ten a groat"

Children were often employed to sell merchants wares in the streets, and Nell has also had work attributed to her including that of an "oyster wench" and "cinder-wench" (someone who raked up cinders, burnt coal and wood to resell as cheap fuel. We also know, reliably coming from Nell herself regarding her early career in which she mentions she was "brought up in a brothel to fill strong waters to the gentlemen" following a falling out with a fellow actress. It is likely that the brothel in which she worked for the notorious Madame Ross (Hopkins 2000, 14-21). However, it was being given work as an orange seller in the new theatre built by Killigrew in the Drury Lane area that Nell really began to make her mark and it opened doors for her to step into the shoes of an actress and eventually catch the eye of a King.

Sources

Beauclerk, C, 2006, Nell Gwyn: A Biography, Pan Macmillian: London

Hopkins, G, 2000, Nell Gwynne: A Passionate Life, Robson Books: London

Image credits:

Portrait of Nell Gwynne by Sir Peter Lely: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Nell_gwyn_peter_lely_c_1675.jpg (accessed 01 March 2012)

Nell Gwynne and Charles II from Charles II: The Power and the Passion: http://perioddramavictoriana.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/article-1344795-00713d3d00000258-32_474x350.jpg (accessed 01 March 2012)

Nell Gwynne Plaque: http://www.fotothing.com/cleftref/photo/4d67c5696e395750f1e4ecce67b45eab/ (accessed 01 March 2012)