Title page from Shield, W. The Woodman: a comic opera, as performed with universal applause at the Theatre Royal Covent Garden. Composed chiefly by Willm Shield. The poetry by Mr. Bate Dudley. (London: Printed by Longman and Broderip, c.1794) (Friends Collection, Friends 649)
William Shield (1748-1829) is a much-neglected figure in British music yet, in his day, was a prolific composer of opera and Master of the King’s Music.
The son of a singing master, he was born in Swalwell (Gateshead). His father gave him musical instruction but died when William was nine years old. Thereafter, William was apprenticed to a Tyneside boat builder but continued to study music. He enjoyed a particularly good relationship with Charles Avison (another celebrated composer from Newcastle upon Tyne) who was then organist at St. Nicholas’ Cathedral, Newcastle. Under Avison, William learned about composition, started to perform at concerts and dances, and became a significant violinist in Newcastle’s programme of subscription concerts. He was 21 years old when he was given his first commission: to compose an anthem which would be sung at the consecration of St. John’s Church, Sunderland.
Completion of his boat building apprenticeship allowed him to work away from Tyneside and he began to lead theatre orchestras in Scarborough and Stockton-on-Tees. At the same time, he struck up a friendship with the antiquarian Joseph Ritson with whom he shared an interest in the folk music tradition.
He was persuaded to move to London and by 1772 was playing violin in the Covent Garden Opera, becoming principal violinist in 1773. The chamber music which he wrote during this period could not compete with the more exciting music of Joseph Haydn but his first comic opera, The Flitch of Bacon (1778) was an immense success and contributed to William’s being appointed composer to Covent Garden. It is in comic operas that William’s contribution to English music lies. Hayden attended the first performance of The Woodman (c.1794) which is featured here.
In 1817 he became Master of the King’s Music and, upon his death; his favourite violin was given to King George IV.
The Woodman comprises 97 pages of music for solo voices and a chorus, and an accompaniment for keyboard. It was gifted to Newcastle University Library by Dr. David Garder-Medwin, President of the Friends of the University Library, in December 2010.
Music score from Shield, W. The Woodman: a comic opera, as performed with universal applause at the Theatre Royal Covent Garden. Composed chiefly by Willm Shield. The poetry by Mr. Bate Dudley. (London: Printed by Longman and Broderip, c.1794) (Friends Collection, Friends 649)
Pages from Morris, W. A Dream of John Ball (London: Kelmscott P, 1892) (Rare Books, RB821.86 MOR)
In the Nineteenth Century, book-making became an industrialised process: hand-made rag, or linen, laid paper was replaced with wove paper, often made from wood pulp; hand presses were replaced with steam-powered rotary presses. Improved literacy levels and the rise of the middle classes created a demand for cheap, mass-produced books. One reaction to this was the establishment of private presses which typically focussed on a return to traditional craftsmanship, creating books which were typographic works of art and which were issued in small print runs.
One such private press was the Kelmscott Press of William Morris, established in January 1891. The last book to have been printed at the Kelmscott Press was A Note by William Morris on his aims in founding the Kelmscott Press together with a short description of the press by S.C. Cockerell, & an annotated list of the books printed thereat (1898). In it, Morris describes his admiration of fifteenth-century books, which he observed “were always beautiful by force of the mere typography, even without the added ornament, with which many of them are so lavishly supplied [e.g. illumination and pen-work flourishing]”.
Morris favoured linen paper, with subtle chain lines, modelled on an example of Bolognese paper from 1473. He designed a Roman fount along the lines of that designed by fifteenth-century Venetian printer, Nicholas Jenson, and followed the types of Gothic fount that were used in the first 20 years of printing, such as that of Gunther Zainer at Augsburg. Morris was also concerned that any decoration be in harmony with the pages of type.
This book, A Dream of John Ball, was published by the Kelmscott Press in 1892. It is a small quarto, printed in black and red, with embellished capital letters. The woodcut illustration you see here was designed by Edward Burne-Jones, who illustrated many Kelmscott Press books; Morris designed the borders around the text. The Philip Robinson Library copy is one of 300 paper copies, which were sold by Reeves & Turner. The text block has been sewn and bound in limp vellum.
Text block from Morris, W. A Dream of John Ball (London: Kelmscott P, 1892) (Rare Books, RB821.86 MOR)
Page 32 from Jane Lorraine’s Recipe Book on how to make ‘Carraway Cakes’, ‘Sugar Plait’ and other recipes (Miscellaneous Manuscripts, Misc. MSS. 5)
This additional treasure of the month has been provided by Catherine Alexander, a student in the School of English Literature, Language and Linguistics, who has recently completed a summer research project based around a seventeenth-century recipe book, held in Special Collections.
This is a seventeenth century cook book manuscript, written by Jane Loraine, who lived in Northumberland. She is likely to have been the wife of Nicholas Loraine, son of Ambrose Loraine of Hartburn, and probably a member of the Fenwick family. The cook book is firmly rooted in Northumberland, and there are extensive records of the Loraine family in Kirkharle. Reference to individuals also demonstrates a local community; in this recipe Mrs Charleton’s surname locates her in Charlton, near Bellingham in North Tynedale. There are 67 recipes attributed to 41 individuals in this cook book, only 13 of whom are men.
Recipe: To maike mackrowns page 31 fol. 24V
25 Mackrowns Mrs Charletons this Take 4 new Laid eggs beat them a quarter of an houre in a glased earthen pot put to them ten spoun fulls of rose water beat it a quarter of an houre longer then put six spounfuls more of rose water beat it a quarter or an hour Longer then put one pound of lose sugar down weight finely beaten beat it halfe an houre Longer then put in halfe a pound of London flower beat it till it is well mixt butter your cofins deep in a good spounfull set them in as fast as you can let your oven be as hot as for white bread it must be A clay oven
The manuscript, in folio format, is 78 pages long and contains 665 recipes. The page numbering, added later, shows missing pages.
The annotation beside the recipe title: ‘this‘, shows use of the book and the selection process for the contents page.
Page 31 from Jane Lorraine’s Recipe Book on how to make ‘Macrowns’ (Miscellaneous Manuscripts, Misc. MSS. 5)
This manuscript is typical in its medical emphasis and over half of the recipes are medical, while only a quarter are culinary. These food recipes focus on cakes, creams and preserves, while the medical receipts cover a range of illnesses, focusing on common concerns such as consumption, and women’s health, particularly childbirth. There are also some recipes for beauty treatments and perfumes. Nine percent of the recipes represent the overlap between food and health, in the waters and wines which function as drinks as well as preventative medicines and cures.
Page 66 from Jane Lorraine’s Recipe Book showing multiple recipes for a common cold or cough (Miscellaneous Manuscripts, Misc. MSS. 5)
This hybridity has an impact on the domestic roles of women, as they commanded authority on medical as well as culinary issues.
Many parallels and similarities can be seen with other cook book manuscripts and printed texts at this time, and this manuscript is part of a widespread communication of ideas and advice. This genre was popular in the seventeenth century and gave women a literary voice.
Page 65 from Jane Lorraine’s Recipe Book showing multiple recipes for a consumption (Miscellaneous Manuscripts, Misc. MSS. 5)
Collaboration is also typical within the recipe book format, and this can be seen through reference to individuals as well as in the six different handwritings identifiable in the text. The secretary hand which dominates 70% of the text can be associated with Jane Loraine, through the 13 signatures given. Many of these are dated between 1684-6.
Map of part of Cumberland from Speed, John, 1552?-1629.: The theatre of the empire of Great Britaine : presenting an exact geography of the kingdomes of England, Scotland, Ireland, and the iles adioyning: with the shires, hundreds, cities and shire-townes, within ye kingdome of England. London, : And are to be solde by I. Sudbury and G. Humble, 1611. (Post Incunabula, Folio PI 912.42 SPE)
John Speed was born in Fardon, Cheshire in 1552. He was a tailor by trade, working in his father’s business until he was nearly 50. He then moved to London to work, but his main interest increasingly became the study of history. He joined the Society of Antiquaries. An allowance from Sir Fulke Greville enabled him to continue his research full time. William Camden encouraged him to begin a history of Britain.
Map of part of Bishoprick, Durham from Speed, John, 1552?-1629.: The theatre of the empire of Great Britaine : presenting an exact geography of the kingdomes of England, Scotland, Ireland, and the iles adioyning: with the shires, hundreds, cities and shire-townes, within ye kingdome of England. London, : And are to be solde by I. Sudbury and G. Humble, 1611. (Post Incunabula, Folio PI 912.42 SPE)
The Historie of Great Britaine was published in 1611 but of greater importance was the atlas that accompanied it – The Theatre of the Empire of Great Britaine, published in the same year, which is the subject of this month’s Treasure.
The atlas contains maps for each of the counties of England and Wales, 5 maps of Ireland and a general map of Scotland.
The first map (Cheshire) had been ready for engraving in 1604 but the death, in that same year, of the person selected to engrave the maps caused a serious delay.
In 1607 Flemish engraver Jodocus Hondius Sr. based in Amsterdam was asked to carry out the engraving which was completed between 1607 and 1611.
Map of part of Cumberland from Speed, John, 1552?-1629.: The theatre of the empire of Great Britaine : presenting an exact geography of the kingdomes of England, Scotland, Ireland, and the iles adioyning: with the shires, hundreds, cities and shire-townes, within ye kingdome of England. London, : And are to be solde by I. Sudbury and G. Humble, 1611. (Post Incunabula, Folio PI 912.42 SPE)
Probably the earliest county atlas of England and Wales, most of the county maps contain town plans which in many cases were the first depiction of that town.
Although the county maps were based on earlier works many of the town plans were in fact surveyed by Speed.
The town plans marked with a Scale of Passes [paces] being those that Speed had surveyed. A pace being equal to 5 feet.
The Library’s copy of The Theatre of the Empire of Great Britaine is incomplete but does include the map for Northumberland. The eastern half of the map includes a plan of Newcastle and various antiquarian objects.
Map of part of North Cumberland showing the Farne Island from Speed, John, 1552?-1629.: The theatre of the empire of Great Britaine : presenting an exact geography of the kingdomes of England, Scotland, Ireland, and the iles adioyning: with the shires, hundreds, cities and shire-townes, within ye kingdome of England. London, : And are to be solde by I. Sudbury and G. Humble, 1611. (Post Incunabula, Folio PI 912.42 SPE)
The western portion includes armorials of various local families and a town plan of Barwick [Berwick]. The Theatre of the Empire also includes maps of Farne and Holy Island.
Map of part of Northumberland showing Holy Island from Speed, John, 1552?-1629.: The theatre of the empire of Great Britaine : presenting an exact geography of the kingdomes of England, Scotland, Ireland, and the iles adioyning: with the shires, hundreds, cities and shire-townes, within ye kingdome of England. London, : And are to be solde by I. Sudbury and G. Humble, 1611. (Post Incunabula, Folio PI 912.42 SPE)
This additional treasure of the month has been provided by Catherine Alexander, a student in the School of English Literature, Language and Linguistics, who has recently completed a summer research project based around a seventeenth-century recipe book, held in Special Collections.
Extract from Jane Loraine’s Recipe Book(Miscellaneous Manuscripts, Misc. MSS. 5)
This is a seventeenth century cook book manuscript, written by Jane Loraine, who lived in Northumberland. She is likely to have been the wife of Nicholas Loraine, son of Ambrose Loraine of Hartburn, and probably a member of the Fenwick family. The cook book is firmly rooted in Northumberland, and there are extensive records of the Loraine family in Kirkharle. Reference to individuals also demonstrates a local community; in this recipe Mrs Charleton’s surname locates her in Charlton, near Bellingham in North Tynedale. There are 67 recipes attributed to 41 individuals in this cook book, only 13 of whom are men.
To maike mackrowns page 31 fol. 24V
25 Mackrowns Mrs Charletons this Take 4 new Laid eggs beat them a quarter of an houre in a glased earthen pot put to them ten spoun fulls of rose water beat it a quarter of an houre longer then put six spounfuls more of rose water beat it a quarter or an hour Longer then put one pound of lose sugar down weight finely beaten beat it halfe an houre Longer then put in halfe a pound of London flower beat it till it is well mixt butter your cofins deep in a good spounfull set them in as fast as you can let your oven be as hot as for white bread it must be A clay oven
The manuscript, in folio format, is 78 pages long and contains 665 recipes. The page numbering, added later, shows missing pages.
The annotation beside the recipe title: ‘this‘, shows use of the book and the selection process for the contents page.
Page 31 from Jane Loraine’s Recipe Book, showing the recipe on how ‘to maike mackrowns’ (Miscellaneous Manuscripts, Misc. MSS. 5)
This manuscript is typical in its medical emphasis and over half of the recipes are medical, while only a quarter are culinary. These food recipes focus on cakes, creams and preserves, while the medical receipts cover a range of illnesses, focusing on common concerns such as consumption, and women’s health, particularly childbirth. There are also some recipes for beauty treatments and perfumes. Nine percent of the recipes represent the overlap between food and health, in the waters and wines which function as drinks as well as preventative medicines and cures.
This hybridity has an impact on the domestic roles of women, as they commanded authority on medical as well as culinary issues.
Many parallels and similarities can be seen with other cook book manuscripts and printed texts at this time, and this manuscript is part of a widespread communication of ideas and advice. This genre was popular in the seventeenth century and gave women a literary voice.
Collaboration is also typical within the recipe book format, and this can be seen through reference to individuals as well as in the six different handwritings identifiable in the text. The secretary hand which dominates 70% of the text can be associated with Jane Loraine, through the 13 signatures given. Many of these are dated between 1684-6.
Further information about this manuscript can be found on the Turning Pages software in the School of English.
Extract from Jane Loraine’s Recipe Book(Miscellaneous Manuscripts, Misc. MSS. 5)
[Mary, Queen of Scots] In the Royal Palace of St. James’s an Antient Painting. 1580. Delineated and sculpted by G. Vertue (1735) (Clarke (Edwin) General Collection)
This month marks the 450th anniversary of Mary, Queen of Scots’ return to Scotland aged nineteen, following the death of her husband, King François II of France. Mary was born in 1542 and became Queen of Scotland six days later following the death of her father, King James V, after his defeat at the battle of Solway Moss. King Henry VIII was determined to marry the infant Queen to his son, Edward, thus finally uniting the crowns of Scotland and England. This was unpopular with the Scottish nobles who instead made a deal with the French to marry Mary to the Dauphin. This was ratified by the Treaty of Haddington in 1548 and Mary was sent to live in France – a safe distance from the attempts by English troops to kidnap her.
After Francois’ death Mary decided to return to Scotland to rule the country of her birth. Her mother, Mary of Guise, had ruled as regent until her death in 1560 and now the nobles had seized power under her half-brother, Lord James Stewart. They welcomed Mary’s return. Scotland was now a Protestant, and turbulent, country and, as a Catholic, Mary had to compromise over religion during her reign.
Mary was determined to have her claim to the English throne recognised and hoped that she would be named by Queen Elizabeth as her heir. They made plans to meet in summer 1562 but Elizabeth pulled out at the last minute. Mary was upset and annoyed that she had listened to Elizabeth’s opinions about who she should marry. Elizabeth had suggested her own favourite, Robert Dudley, 1st Earl of Leicester, as she thought this would allow her to manipulate Mary’s decisions. In the end, Mary married her English Catholic first cousin, Henry Stuart, Lord Darnley at Holyrood Palace on 29th July 1565. She married without consulting Elizabeth who was furious as both Mary and Darnley were claimants to the English throne and any children would inherit both parents’ claims and thus be next in line for the crown.
At first Mary was infatuated with Darnley but before long he became arrogant, demanding more power and to be crowned King. He was also jealous of Mary’s friendship with her private secretary, David Rizzio, and he entered into a secret plot with the nobles to get rid of him. They were jealous of Rizzio’s position as Mary’s favourite and of his influence over her. On 9th March 1566, a group of the lords, accompanied by Darnley, murdered Rizzio in front of the pregnant Mary at Holyrood Palace in Edinburgh. Mary was kept prisoner but she managed to lure Darnley back to her side and they escaped. However, she could now no longer trust him.
In June, their son James was born. Those nobles who were loyal to Mary met to discuss the problem of Darnley and swore a bond vowing to get rid of him. Darnley knew the tide had turned against him and, fearing for his safety, fled to his father in Glasgow. Here he was taken ill, with what is now believed to have been syphilis. Mary encouraged her husband to come back to Edinburgh and arranged for him to recuperate in a house at the former abbey of Kirk o’ Field, within the city walls. In February 1567 an explosion occurred in the house in the middle of the night, and Darnley was found dead in the garden. He appeared to have been strangled. He and a servant were found in their bedclothes with a variety of objects including a chair, a dagger and a rope, leading historians to suggest that they were aware the house was going to explode and were trying to escape. It is possible that they were apprehended whilst fleeing and were strangled to death.
One of the nobles, James Hepburn, 4th Earl of Bothwell, was quickly accused of having supplied the gunpowder for the explosion and he was believed by many to be responsible for Darnley’s death. It was Mary’s and Bothwell’s actions in the wake of Darnley’s murder that convinced everyone of their guilt. Such was the evidence against Bothwell that Mary had to arrange a staged trial before Parliament, during which he was acquitted. Bothwell then managed to convince the nobles to sign the Ainslie Tavern Bond, in which they agreed to support him in his attempt to marry the Queen. By now the Scots were beginning to become suspicious of Mary.
In April 1567, Mary visited her son at Stirling, for what would be the last time. On her way back to Edinburgh she was abducted by Bothwell and his men and taken to Dunbar Castle, where she was allegedly raped by Bothwell. They returned to Edinburgh and at Holyrood they were married. Mary believed the marriage had the support of her nobles because of the Ainslie Tavern Bond. But they soon turned against the newlyweds and raised an army against them. Mary and Bothwell confronted them at Carberry Hill on 15th June. Although no fighting took place, Mary agreed to go with the Lords on condition that they let Bothwell go. However, they imprisoned her in a castle on an island in the middle of Loch Leven and forced her to abdicate the throne in favour of her son, James. Her brother James was to act as regent.
In May 1568, Mary escaped and managed to raise a small army. After her army’s defeat at the Battle of Langside, she fled by boat across the Solway Firth into England. She appealed to her cousin, Queen Elizabeth, to help restore her to her throne but Elizabeth, fearful of Mary’s presence in her country, instead imprisoned her for nineteen years. Following years of plots and escape attempts, Elizabeth eventually had Mary executed at Fotheringhay Castle in 1587. Upon Queen Elizabeth’s death, Mary and Darnley’s son ascended to the English throne as King James I, finally uniting the Scottish and English crowns.
Historians have examined the evidence and debated whether Mary and Bothwell plotted Darnley’s death, without reaching any definitive conclusion. Bothwell was almost certainly involved in Darnley’s death, but so were most of the nobles – after all they had signed a bond vowing to get rid of him. It is likely that they pointed the finger of blame at Bothwell in order to save their own lives. That Mary so unquestioningly took his side and then quickly married him has been taken as evidence of her guilt. However, as much as she hated Darnley at this point, as a ruling Queen, it is unlikely that she would have plotted his death. In the aftermath of his murder she would have been fearful for her own life and may have seen Bothwell as a protector. After he allegedly raped her, she would have had no choice but to marry him or forgo her honour. Almost as soon as she was in England, she promised to divorce him and marry someone of Elizabeth’s choosing in return for her freedom. It is unlikely she would have been so quick to cast her husband aside if he had been worth committing murder and jeopardising the throne for, just months earlier.
Illustration of ‘Chippeway Squaw & Child’ from M’Kenney, T.L. History of the Indian tribes of North America, with biographical sketches and anecdotes of the principal chiefs. Embellished with one hundred and twenty portraits from the Indian Gallery in the Department of War, at Washington (Philadelphia: Edward C. Biddle, 1837) (19th Century Collection, 19th C. Coll 970.1 MAC Elephant folio)
Thomas Loraine McKenney (1785-1859) served as Superintendent of Indian Trade (1816-1822) and as Superintendent of Indian Affairs in the newly-formed Bureau of Indian Affairs (1824-1830). The 1820s were a time when the Eastern Native American tribes faced a government policy which forced them to abandon traditional lands and move westwards. McKenney thought that the Native Americans would benefit from complying with the U.S. Government and was an advocate of U.S. President Thomas Jefferson’s American Indian ‘civilization program’. Jefferson believed that it was the environments in which Native American tribes lived which rendered them ‘savage’ and that removal west, into European-style towns, would see them progress to become ‘full Americans’. Nevertheless, Jefferson and McKenney shared the opinion that Native Americans were intellectual and moral equals to white men and defended Native American cultures.
McKenney was instrumental in bringing Native American delegations to Washington D.C. where they negotiated re-settlement terms and treaties. Keen to capture something of a vanishing way of life, he commissioned Charles Bird King to paint the portraits of Native American leaders and those paintings were housed in the War Department’s museum.
Later, Henry Inman was asked by McKenney to reproduce the paintings for publication in a three-volume portfolio: History of the Indian Tribes of North America. The portfolio took more than twelve years to complete, featured hand-coloured lithography and was expensive to both produce and purchase. The gallery of original portraits was transferred to the Smithsonian Institution in 1858 but was destroyed by fire on 24th January, 1865.
Whilst the portfolio features the portraits of several well-known Native American leaders, a small number of female subjects are included in the study. Selected images are accompanied here with extracts from the text.
Chippeway squaw and child
Extract;
“The life of the Indian woman, under the most favourable circumstances, is one of continual labour and unmitigated hardship. Trained to servitude from infancy, and condemned to the performance of the most menial offices, they are the servants rather than the companions of man. Upon them, therefore, fall with peculiar severity, all those vicissitudes and accidents of savage life which impose hardships and privations beyond those that ordinarily attend the state of barbarism”
“The woman who, during the season of plenty, was worn down with the labour of following the hunter to the chase, carrying the game and dressing the food, now [during periods when resources are scarce] becomes the purveyor of the family, roaming the forest in search of berries, burrowing in the earth for roots, or ensnaring the lesser animals. While engaged in these various duties, she discharges also those of the mother, and travels over the icy plains with her infant at her back.
Iroquois and Sioux tribes, by the late Eighteenth Century they controlled Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Michigan, Minnesota, North Dakota, Illinois, Indiana and Ohio but lost most of their land when white settlers forced them onto reservations in the Nineteenth Century. Despite the name Hiawatha deriving from the Iroquois, Henry Wadsworth Longfellow’s epic poem, The song of Hiawatha (1855), contains place names and stories originating from the Chippeway”.
“Women (and children) were expected to perform such tasks as foraging for food and firewood, selecting plants to be used as thatch, farming, preparing feasts, making dyes and needlework (the moccasins worn by both sexes were often dyed red, yellow, blue and green and the winter months were passed adding quill work and moose hair designs)”.
(vol. 1)
The Chippeway widow
The portrait of a Chippeway widow is a representation rather than the portrait of a known individual.
Illustration of ‘A Chippeway Widow’ from M’Kenney, T.L. History of the Indian tribes of North America, with biographical sketches and anecdotes of the principal chiefs. Embellished with one hundred and twenty portraits from the Indian Gallery in the Department of War, at Washington (Philadelphia: Edward C. Biddle, 1837) (19th Century Collection, 19th C. Coll 970.1 MAC Elephant folio)
Extract;
“A Chippeway widow, on the death of her husband, selects from his scanty wardrobe, a complete suit of his best clothes, which she makes up into a bundle. This is placed near her while at work, and is carried wherever she goes. She calls it her husband, treats it with the respect which would be due to a living lord and master, and would be considered as disgracing herself and treating his memory with disrespect, if she was to part with it even for a moment . . . . The Chippeway widow carries her “husband” during the season of mourning, which is one year, and during that time cannot marry without gross impropriety. If she does not marry at the close of the year, she usually continues to carry the badge of her widowhood until she is relieved of it by the nearest relatives of her deceased husband, who may at any time, whenthey conceive she has mourned long enough, call upon her, and take away the bundle, after which she is at liberty to contract a second marriage“.
(vol. 2)
Pocahontas
Illustration of ‘Pocahontas’ from M’Kenney, T.L. History of the Indian tribes of North America, with biographical sketches and anecdotes of the principal chiefs. Embellished with one hundred and twenty portraits from the Indian Gallery in the Department of War, at Washington (Philadelphia: Edward C. Biddle, 1837) (19th Century Collection, 19th C. Coll 970.1 MAC Elephant folio)
Pocahontas (c.1595-1617) was the daughter of a Native American chief in Virginia. When English settler, Captain John Smith, described his capture by a Native American hunting party, he retrospectively credited Pocahontas as having saved him. The omission of her from his earliest accounts has made historians question the veracity of the tale but it has been established that she at least befriended Smith and visited the Jamestown colony, bringing food when it was most needed and playing with the children.Fiction romanticises the relationship between Pocahontas and Smith but there is no evidence that they were lovers. Captured by the English in 1613, she was taught about Christianity and baptised as Rebecca.
“Though born and reared in savage life, [Pocahontas] was a creature of exquisite loveliness and refinement. The gracefulness of her person, the gentleness of her nature – her benevolence, her courage, her noble self-devotion in the discharge of duty, elevate this lovely woman to an equality with the most illustrious and most attractive of her sex; and yet those winning graces and noble qualities were not the most remarkable features of her character, which was even more distinguished by the wonderful tact, and the delicate sense of propriety, which marked all the scenes of her brief, but eventful history.”
Illustration of The Weavers or Carliol Tower and The Mechanics Institute, 1878 from from Boyle, J.R. Vestiges of old Newcastle and Gateshead. 2 vols. (Newcastle-upon-Tyne: Andrew Reid; London: Elliot Stock, 1890) (Rare Books Collection, RB 942.82 BOY Quarto)
In 1769 James Granger’s Biographical History of England was published with deliberately blank pages for the purchaser to customise. Thus grangerised entered rare books terminology. Extra-illustrated is a more user-friendly term which has come to be commonly used today. Typically, book owners have customised copies by adding engraved portraits and topographical prints but sometimes autograph letters, drawings, watercolours and other documents have been pasted in and this is exactly what W.B. Bond has done with his copy of J.R. Boyle’s Vestiges of old Newcastle and Gateshead (1890).
The publication is not as scarce as some other titles held in the Philip Robinson Library’s Special Collections: twelve other institutions are listed on COPAC as holding copies, from the National Library of Scotland, to the British Library and Trinity College Dublin. What make our copy unique are the two hundred and thirty engravings, watercolours and autographs which have been added. These include: autograph letters from historians and antiquaries John Hodgson, John Collingwood Bruce, W.H. Longstaffe, and Richard Welford; engraved portraits of King Charles II and Oliver Cromwell; a bookplate taken from a copy of Il Decamerone (1727), the title page of which had borne the inscription of musician Charles Avison; engravings of local views and landmarks, such as Alnwick Castle, Sunderland harbour, and Jesmond cemetery; and original watercolours depicting the Holy Jesus Hospital, an old house in Low Friar Street, almshouses in Westgate Street, Thomas Bewick’s workshop at St. Nicholas’ church yard, and more.
Two local watercolours have been chosen to illustrate this ‘treasure’: The Weavers or Carliol Tower and The Mechanics Institute, 1878 and The Temporary Bridge over the Tyne – August 17th 1875, both signed by W.B. Bond.
The Weavers or Carliol Tower and The Mechanics Institute, 1878 (above): Newcastle was fortified in the Thirteenth Century and Carliol Tower, named after the De Carleiol family, was one of the seventeen towers which were features of the town wall. The discovery, by workmen in 1824, of a cannonball is evidence that it came under fire when the Scots stormed Newcastle in 1644. Less than twenty years after the violence of the English Revolution, or Civil War, the Weaver’s Company appropriated the tower as a meeting house. The tower was repaired and enlarged in 1821 but, like many of the town’s defensive towers, was demolished in the late Nineteenth Century. The foundation stone for The Mechanic’s Institute which adjoined Carliol Tower, on New Bridge Street, had been laid on 19th April, 1865. From 1866, it housed a library and was a venue for lectures on industrial developments and for delivering engineering classes. In 1880, The Mechanics’ Institute became part of the new City Library.
The Temporary Bridge over the Tyne – August 17th 1875 (below): Bond has not specified the location of this temporary bridge over the Tyne. However, a temporary bridge existed whilst the Swing Bridge was being constructed and it is possible that this is what Bond painted, looking across the river towards Gateshead and St. Mary’s Church. The Roman Pons Aelius had first spanned the Tyne but it had been replaced by a mediaeval stone bridge. When this was destroyed by the flood of 1771, a new stone bridge was built in its place. Increased shipping resulted in that bridge being removed in 1866 and it wasn’t until 1876 that the Swing Bridge was opened. Thus, it is possible that the watercolour depicts the temporary wooden bridge at time when it had almost run the course of its usefulness and with the construction of the Swing Bridge glimpsed immediately behind it.
According to a manuscript annotation on a front endpaper, Bond inserted the additional engravings, watercolours and autographs whilst in San Sebastiano, Venice, 1913 and two items which had been addressed to him there are tipped in at the end of the second volume.
Illustration of The Temporary Bridge over the Tyne – August 17th 1875 from Boyle, J.R. Vestiges of old Newcastle and Gateshead. 2 vols. (Newcastle-upon-Tyne: Andrew Reid; London: Elliot Stock, 1890) (Rare Books Collection, RB 942.82 BOY Quarto)
Page from Opera chirurgica(Pybus (Professor Frederick) Collection, Pybus, Pyb. C.v.5)
Pybus Collection: Pyb C.v.5
John Arderne (1307-1380) practised as a surgeon in Newark and London and earned himself great renown particularly for his medical works, written in Latin despite his lack of a university education. Arderne was typical of medical practitioners in the Fourteenth Century – embracing medical advances, pioneering new methods and referencing the likes of Hippocrates, Galen and Avicenna yet harking back to the Anglo-Saxons’ astrological approaches to medicine.
Page from Opera chirurgica showing marginalia illustrations (Pybus (Professor Frederick) Collection, Pybus, Pyb. C.v.5)
Arderne’s manuscripts were commonly illustrated, both to show techniques and remedies, and to aid the reader in navigating a potentially confusing text. This manuscript, written in Latin but including some passages in French near the beginning, has been illustrated with pictures of operations, instruments, plants, blazons, &c.
The manuscript was formerly part of the private collection of Professor Pybus (1883-1975) who donated his history of medicine books, engravings, portraits, busts, bleeding bowls and research notes to the University Library in 1965. The manuscript now bears his presentation bookplate but there is further evidence of provenance: it has been inscribed by W. Harrysson, Silvester Rowlestone, Sarah Ridall, Mary [Riddall?], Richard Pearson, Mster [sic] Rutter and Christopher Wainman.
Roughly contemporaneous with Arderne’ manuscripts, is Chaucer’ Canterbury Tales, the Prologue of which contains the following depiction of a physician grounded in astronomy, led by ancient classical texts, dressed in taffeta and silk, with a penchant for gold:
With us ther was a Doctour of Phisike; In all this world ne was ther non him like To speke of phisike and of surgerie, For he was grounded in astronomie. He kept his patient a ful gret del In houres by his magike naturel: Wel coude he fortunen the ascendant Of his images for his patient. He knew the cause of every maladie, Were it of cold, or hote, or moist, or drie, And wher engendred, and of what humour: He was a veray parfite practisour. The cause yknowe, and of his harm the rote, Anon he gave to the sike man his bote. Ful redy hadde he his apothecaries To send him dragges and his lettuaries, For eche of hem made other for to winne: His friendship n’s not newe to beginner. Wewl knew he the old Esculapius, And Dioscorides and eke Rufus, Old Hippocras, Hali, and Gallien, Serapion, Rafis, and Avicen, Averrois, Damascene, and Constantin, Bernard, and Gatisden, and Gilbertin. Of his diete mesurable was he, For it was of no superfluitee, But of gret nourishing, and digestible: His studie was but little on the Bible. In sanguine and in perse he clad was alle Lined with taffeta and with sendalle. And yet he was but esy of dispence; He kepte that he wan in the pestilence; For gold in phisike is a cordial, Therfore he loved gold in special.
Extract from The Poetical Works of Geoff. Chaucer … (Edinburgh: At the Apollo Press by the Martins, 1782) Vol. 1. (White (Robert) Collection W821.17 CHA)
‘King Edward’s Chair’ in: Shanks, E. The Coronation of Their Most Gracious Majesties King George VI and Queen Elizabeth (London: George Newnes, 1937) Held in Laura Gillott’s personal collection
An exhibition curated by Laura Gillott
Introduction
King Edward’s Chair, or, The Coronation Chair, is the throne on which the British monarch sits during their coronation. It was commissioned in 1296 by King Edward I to contain the coronation stone of Scotland, the Stone of Scone, which he had captured from the Scots. The chair was named after Edward the Confessor and was kept in his chapel at Westminster Abbey. Since 1308, with only a few exceptions, anointed sovereigns of England have been seated in this chair at the moment of their coronation. It is the coveted ‘throne’: fought for, and sought by, so many claimants over the years. To sit upon it was to be made monarch.
Throughout history there have been a huge number of claimants to the English throne. Some have posed more serious threats than others and some have even successfully usurped reigning monarchs. Thus, over the centuries, those in power have kept a close eye on their rivals and potential heirs to the throne.
Female claimants, whilst rarely considered as posing as significant a threat as their male counterparts, have arisen over the years. Queen Elizabeth I was herself accused of trying to overthrow Queen Mary I in 1554 and, when Elizabeth was Queen, she was so fearful that Mary, Queen of Scots planned to usurp her, that she eventually had her executed in 1587.
Women have been watched especially with regard to their choice of husband in fear that a wisely-chosen matrimonial union could have strengthened their claims to the throne. Although some claimants never showed any desire to become Queens, their very existence was considered threatening.
This exhibition looks at five women throughout history who came close to the English throne but whom, through war, death, imprisonment or bad luck, never became crowned as Queen. Had any of these women ascended to the throne English history could have been quite different and the modern royal family unrecognisable …
Empress Matilda (1102-1167)
Matilda of England was born in 1102. Matilda and her younger brother were the only children of King Henry I and Matilda of Scotland to survive to adulthood. The death of her brother, in 1120, made Matilda the last heir from the paternal line of her grandfather, William the Conqueror.
At twelve years old, Matilda was married to Henry V, the Holy Roman Emperor. After his death she returned to England and, in 1128, married Geoffrey of Anjou with whom she had three sons. Before Matilda’s father died in 1135 there were several contenders for the throne: Robert of Gloucester (the illegitimate son of Henry I); Stephen of Blois (Matilda’s cousin); Stephen’s older brother, Theobald; and Matilda (Henry’s only surviving legitimate child). Henry named Matilda as his heir and made the barons of England swear allegiance to her. Stephen was the first to do so but, when Henry died, he seized the throne, claiming that Henry had changed his mind on his deathbed. Stephen gained the support of the majority of the nobles as well as that of the Pope and his early reign was peaceful. Matilda then began military campaigns to re-claim her birthright.
‘King Stephen’ from Raine, J. A Brief historical account of the Episcopal castle, or palace, of Auckland. . . 2 vols. (Durham: George Andrews, 1852) (Rare Books, RB942.81 RAI)
Matilda’s half-brother, Robert of Gloucester, campaigned for her in England and she invaded in 1139. In 1141, her forces defeated and captured Stephen at the Battle of Lincoln. He was effectively deposed and she briefly ruled. Matilda went by the title ‘Lady of the English’ and planned to become Queen. She lost support when she refused to reduce taxes and the citizens of London re-started the civil war.
Stephen was freed in exchange for the captured Robert of Gloucester and, a year later, the tables were turned when Matilda was besieged at Oxford. She escaped by fleeing across the snow in a white cape and crossing the frozen River Thames. She also later escaped Devizes in a similar manner, by disguising herself as a corpse and being carried out.
‘King Stephen before the Battle of Lincoln, 1141’ from Forester, T. (ed.) The chronicle of Henry of Huntingdon… (London: G.H. Bohn, 1853) [White (Robert) Collection, W942 HEN]
By 1148, after many failed attempts, Matilda accepted that she would never be Queen. Her eldest son, Henry, took up her cause and repeatedly invaded England. This led to the Treaty of Wallingford in 1153, in which Stephen agreed to name Henry as his heir. Matilda died in 1167 and is buried in Rouen Cathedral, where her grave is marked by the epitaph below:
The Ladies Catherine (1540-1568) and Mary Grey (1545-1578)
When King Edward VII lay dying, he nominated his cousin, Lady Jane Grey, as his successor to prevent his catholic sister, Mary, becoming queen. Jane ruled for nine days in July 1553 before Queen Mary I seized the throne that was rightfully hers according to Henry VIII’s will. Jane was imprisoned in the Tower of London and executed, along with her father and husband in 1554. The ladies Catherine and Mary Grey were the younger sisters of Lady Jane Grey and cousins to Queen Elizabeth I. After Jane’s execution they both had claims to the throne as granddaughters of Mary Tudor, the younger sister of King Henry VIII. (Their parents were Henry Grey, 1st Duke of Suffolk and Lady Frances Brandon.) Neither Catherine nor Mary were as religious as the fervently Protestant Jane and this probably saved them from becoming the focus of Protestant plots whilst Mary I was on the throne.
Lady Catherine Grey was born in 1540. She was married to Henry Herbert, in 1553 (on the same day her sister Jane married Guilford Dudley). When Elizabeth I came to the throne, in November 1558, Catherine’s availability as a possible heir came to the fore. At one point the Queen seemed to be warming to Catherine and it was rumoured that she was considering adopting her. As Catherine was a possible heir to the throne, Elizabeth had to consider a suitable marriage for her. The best match would have been one that would not threaten her reign, but could bring some political advantages to England if Catherine were indeed to succeed her. A union between Catherine and the Earl of Arran (a young nobleman with a strong claim to the Scottish throne) was envisaged.
In December 1560, Catherine secretly married Edward Seymour, 1st Earl of Hertford. Not having the Queen’s official permission to wed proved disastrous. Elizabeth had decided to send Edward on an educational tour of Europe. Catherine, who had fallen pregnant before Edward left, managed to conceal the marriage from everyone. However, in her eighth month of pregnancy she knew she would have to ask someone to plead for her with the Queen. She first confided in Bess of Hardwick, who was frightened about the consequences of knowing such a secret and refused to listen. Catherine then secretly visited Lord Robert Dudley, in his bedroom in the middle of the night and told him her story, but the next day he reported everything to Elizabeth. Elizabeth was furious that her cousin had married without her permission and thus thwarted plans for her to marry the Earl of Arran.
Portrait of Lady Catherine and her son, Edward Seymour. From the collection of the Duke of Northumberland. Used with kind permission of the Duke of Northumberland.
The unmarried Elizabeth feared that Catherine would give birth to a son and start a rebellion. Thus Catherine was imprisoned in the Tower of London, where Edward joined her on his return to England. The Lieutenant of the Tower permitted husband and wife to secretly visit one another and, as a result, they had two sons: Edward Seymour, Lord Beauchamp, born in 1561 and Thomas Seymour, born in 1563. In 1562 their marriage was declared invalid and their sons illegitimate. After the birth of their second child, the Queen ordered their permanent separation. Catherine was moved from one location to another under house arrest, eventually ending up at Cockfield Hall in Yoxford, Suffolk. There, she died in 1568, at the age of twenty seven, from consumption.
Lady Mary Grey was born in 1545. She was reportedly slightly deformed and was described by her contemporaries as the smallest person at court. Like her sister Catherine, Mary angered Queen Elizabeth I by marrying without royal consent. Her marriage to Thomas Keyes, the Sergeant Porter, in 1563 resulted, two years later, in her imprisonment in the Tower of London. (The marriage had surprised many since Keyes was an unusually large man whose height contrasted with that of the tiny Mary.) It is possible Mary thought that by marrying someone of such lowly rank, Elizabeth would see her as no threat.
When Catherine died, Mary was brought to prominence as the last surviving grandchild of Mary Tudor. Since Catherine’s children were considered to be illegitimate, some people regarded Mary as heiress presumptive to the English throne. She remained under house arrest until 1572 and was permitted to attend Court occasionally. In spite of the intrigue surrounding her, it does not appear that Mary ever made a serious claim to the throne. Rather, it seems her life was ruined by her royal blood. She died childless and in some poverty, in 1578, at the age of thirty three.
Lady Arbella Stuart (1575-1615)
Lady Arbella Stuart (sometimes spelled Arabella) was born in 1575 and was considered a possible successor to Queen Elizabeth I. The only child of Charles Stuart, 1st Earl of Lennox, and Elizabeth Cavendish, Arbella was a direct descendant of King Henry VII. Through the paternal line, she was the great-granddaughter of Henry VIII’s sister. Both Arbella’s parents died before she was seven and she was raised by her grandmother, Bess of Hardwick.
‘Lady Arabella Stuart’ engraved by T.A. Dean in: Raine, J. A Brief historical account of the Episcopal castle, or palace, of Auckland . . . 2 vols. (Durham: George Andrews, 1852) [Rare Books, RB942.81 RAI]
Queen Elizabeth I came to the throne in 1558. As a woman, a Protestant, and having been declared a bastard after the execution of her mother, Anne Boleyn, in 1536, there were many who felt her claim to the throne was weak and as a result she always felt insecure and at risk from rebellions. Although Arbella’s claim to the throne was even weaker, Elizabeth feared her as she did all potential rivals, and kept a close eye on her throughout her life. It is likely that she preferred the idea of Arbella succeeding her rather than being succeeded by her Catholic cousin Mary, Queen of Scots. However, towards the end of her reign her close advisor, William Cecil, convinced her that Mary’s son, James VI of Scotland, who had been raised as a Protestant, should be her successor. There is no evidence that Arbella ever challenged this.
Towards the end of Elizabeth’s reign, there were reports that Arbella intended to secretly marry Edward Seymour. Arbella denied having any intention of marrying without the Queen’s permission. She was interviewed about her plans in the Long Gallery of Hardwick Hall, Derbyshire, in 1603.
Arbella found herself in trouble again when King James VI of Scotland ascended to the English throne and a plot was devised to overthrow him and replace him with Arbella. The main plot was devised by Arbella’s cousin, Lord Cobham, and Sir Walter Raleigh was among those involved. However, when Arbella was invited to participate by agreeing to it in writing, she reported the plan to James, thus escaping possible imprisonment herself.
In 1610, Arbella secretly married William Seymour, Lord Beauchamp, who later succeeded as 2nd Duke of Somerset. William Seymour also had royal blood as the grandson of Lady Catherine Grey. For marrying without royal permission, King James imprisoned them: Arbella in the custody of Sir Thomas Perry and Seymour in the Tower of London. The couple had some liberty within their prisons and were able to plan their escape.
In June 1611, Arbella dressed as a man and escaped to Kent. A proclamation issued on King James’ behalf stated that they had committed “great and heinous offences” and called upon all persons not to “receive, harbour or assist them in their passage” but to try and apprehend them and hold them in custody. However, it also stated that their intent was to “transport themselves into foreigne parts“. Thus, James must have known that Arbella posed no real threat to his throne and simply wished to escape to be with her husband. William did not arrive at the meeting place and so Arbella set sail for France without him. He had, however, escaped and was on the next ship to Flanders. By this time the alarm had been raised and ships sent after them. Arbella’s boat was within sight of Calais when she insisted upon stopping and waiting for William. This fatal pause allowed her captors to catch up to her and she was forced to surrender whilst, unbeknownst to her, William escaped. Arbella was returned to England and imprisoned in the Tower of London.
When Arbella fell ill in the tower in 1614, it was suspected she was faking illness either in order to escape or to gain sympathy. However, she refused both food and medical attention and was said by some to be delusional towards the end, believing William was coming to rescue her. When she eventually died in 1615 a post-mortem had to be carried out to rule out poisoning. It found that she had died slowly of starvation caused by her own negligence. It has been suggested that Arbella had porphyria, the disease George III and Mary, Queen of Scots are believed to have suffered from. This would explain both her physical and mental symptoms: porphyria can cause abdominal pain, vomiting, seizures and paranoia. She never saw her husband again and is buried in Westminster Abbey.
Princess Charlotte (1796-1817)
Princess Charlotte Augusta of Wales was born in 1796. She was the only child of George, Prince of Wales (later King George IV) and Caroline of Brunswick. As the only legitimate grandchild of George III, she would have become Queen if she hadn’t died in childbirth in 1817, at the age of twenty one.
Charlotte’s parents disliked each other and separated soon after Charlotte’s birth. Prince George left Charlotte’s care to governesses and allowed her only limited contact with her mother. As Charlotte grew to adulthood, her father pressured her to marry William, Hereditary Prince of Orange, but after initially accepting him, Charlotte soon broke off the match. This caused much upset between her and her father, including him placing her under house arrest for several months. He finally permitted her to marry Leopold of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld.
The wedding took place in 1816 and huge crowds attended. It is believed that Charlotte suffered two miscarriages in quick succession after the wedding but, by early 1817, she was pregnant again and it seemed to be progressing well. Her pregnancy was the subject of much public interest, with people placing bets on the sex of the child. Charlotte’s contractions began on 3rd November, but the labour lasted for two days and she eventually gave birth to a stillborn boy on 5th November. Charlotte took the news calmly, stating it was the will of God. She seemed to be recovering but not long after the birth she began bleeding heavily and died soon afterwards.
After Charlotte’s death, there was a huge outpouring of public grief and the whole country went into deep mourning. Linen-drapers reportedly ran out of black cloth and the country shut down almost entirely for two weeks, including the banks and courts. With the loss of his only heir, Prince George was inconsolable and unable to attend Charlotte’s funeral and Princess Caroline fainted in shock when she heard the news. However, it was Charlotte’s husband of just over a year who felt the greatest loss – he was said to be utterly devastated at the deaths of both his wife and son. Many elegies and poems were written about Charlotte, lamenting the loss of the heir to the throne and hope for the future.
Title page of Cockle, Mrs. Elegy to the Memory of Her Royal Highness the Princess Charlotte of Wales (Newcastle upon Tyne: Printed by S. Hodgson, 1817) [Clarke (Edwin) Local Collection, Clarke 1508(1)]
It wasn’t long before people looked for someone to blame for the tragedy. Although the post-mortem was inconclusive, many blamed Charlotte’s physician, Sir Richard Croft, and three months after her death, he killed himself. This led to significant changes in obstetric practice, with intervention in long labour becoming more commonplace and acceptable.
Princess Charlotte was buried, with her son at her feet, in St. George’s Chapel, Windsor Castle, on 19th November 1817. A monument was erected, by public subscription, at her tomb. People lined the streets along the funeral route from Claremont to Windsor to pay their respects to her. The mass public mourning is comparable with the outpouring of grief witnessed when Princess Diana died in 1997. With a mad king on the throne and an unpopular Prince of Wales, many had looked forward to Charlotte’s ascension to the throne and the new uncertainty about the succession accentuated the sense of grief felt by the British public.
What if they had been Queen?
Empress Matilda As her son, Henry, acceded to the throne after Stephen, Matilda’s being Queen wouldn’t have changed the succession. However, if she, as a woman, had become a reigning monarch in the Twelfth Century, then it is possible that we may have seen another queen before Mary I in 1553. Also, if Matilda had been a successful queen then perhaps future kings, such as Henry VIII, would have been less concerned with the need to provide a male heir to the throne.
Lady Catherine and Lady Mary Grey Although there was a good chance that either Catherine or Mary would become Queen, neither of them aspired to the throne and after the failed attempt to make their sister, Jane, Queen they could not count on a great deal of support from nobles who had no desire to lose their heads. Furthermore, neither of them was deeply Protestant, like Jane, and therefore they weren’t a viable alternative to the Catholic Mary I. As it turned out, neither of them lived long lives and it is likely that even if they had ruled, the reign would have been brief and relatively insignificant.
Arbella Stuart It is difficult to say whether or not Arbella desired to be Queen. On one hand she never made any attempt to seize the throne but she had been raised as royalty and her romantic assignations suggest ambition. Even if she had been named as Elizabeth’s heir, James would almost certainly have tried to claim the throne himself and, as a man and King already, would have garnered considerable support. If James had died young, his son, Charles would have eventually tried to take the throne. As her claim wasn’t as strong as theirs, it would have made for a very unsettled reign for Arbella.
Princess Charlotte Charlotte’s death left the king without any legitimate grandchildren and his other sons were urged to marry. George III’s fourth son, Prince Edward, dismissed his mistress and proposed to Leopold’s sister, Victoria. Their daughter, Princess Victoria of Kent, born in 1819, became heir and then Queen. Her uncle Leopold helped arrange her marriage to his nephew, Albert of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. If Charlotte had not died then Victoria may never even have been born, and our current royal family would be descended from Charlotte instead.
![[Mary, Queen of Scots] In the Royal Palace of St. James's an Antient Painting. 1580. Delineated and sculpted by G. Vertue (1735)](https://blogs.ncl.ac.uk/speccoll/files/2020/03/mary.jpg)
