Introduction
The 19th
Century is often depicted as rigid, honorable, uptight, and stoic. The heroes, praised in poem, song, book, and
preserved in memory, include such worthy examples as Lord Uxbridge, a hero at
the Battle of Waterloo, who famously lost a leg to a cannon ball. Upon being
struck by the ball, Lord Uxbridge turned to the Duke of Wellington and said,
“By God sir! I’ve lost my leg,” to which the grand old Duke replied, “By God
sir! So you have.” Lord Uxbridge then
continued to lead his men during the battle as if nothing hampered him. In 19th Century England, to be
English meant to be the embodiment of honor and virtue. In turn honor and virtue reflected not only
your character, but the character of your family and your upbringing.
Among
the upper and middle classes, honor was central to life. Gentlemen and ladies lived by codes of
conduct that forbade certain activities and encouraged restraint and
dignity. The home was sacrosanct and the
family comprised the priests and priestesses to her cult—the Cult of Domesticity. The pantheon enshrined mother and child. Women were to be honored, loved, respected,
and adored. Ladies were synonymous with
virtue, paragons of decorum, and were to live lives above reproach. To aid ladies maintain lives of devoted
decorum, they were to reside at home with a chaperone and could not maintain a
household until they were married and provided for.
Sharon
Crozier-de Rosa, in her work titled, “Marie Corelli’s British New Woman: A
Threat to Empire,” argues that as the middle class became more established and
gained power in their own right, the ideals of womanhood started to shift. This shift gave middle class woman more
freedom in society by loosening restrictions based on gender roles.[1] In A
Grocer’s Tale: Gender, Family, and Class in 19th Century Manchester,
Hannah Barker makes the argument that middle class women were not more free,
however, their circumstances sometimes required them to abandon gender
roles—causing dishonor. Barker argues
that upper class women had more freedom within gender roles because of their
access to education, money, and society.[2] This argument is supported in William
Manchester’s biography of Winston Churchill, when Manchester describes the
sexual liberty of upper class women in late Victorian England.[3]
The idealized
view of womanly comportment was equally inflexible for upper class women; however,
because of their positions as leaders of fashion, and, in the case of a select
few, as political leaders, upper class women had to balance their gender role
with their social and political roles.
Thus when Princess Victoria of Kent became Queen Victoria of the United
Kingdom, she had to balance both her roles as sovereign and of young lady. As sovereign she presided over a
household—her own. As a young lady, she
made up part of her mother’s household.
As young lady and sovereign her household had to be without blemish or
stain of dishonor. Her example set the
social parameters of the realm and would be emulated by families from every
element of the social strata.
When it
came to Queen Victoria’s attention that an unmarried lady, residing at the
palace, was in the family way, she had no choice but to investigate the matter
thoroughly. As sovereign, her every move
was reported and talked of. Accordingly,
the investigation of Lady Flora Hastings, lady-in-waiting to the Duchess of
Kent—Victoria’s mother, caused a scandal that rocked the personal popularity of
the monarch, threatened to overthrow the government, and focused the national
eye on core values and their implementation.
The sad tale of Lady Flora Hastings illustrates the supreme importance
of adherence to the established gender roles in the household and in the family
during the 19th Century.
While
the London Times provides much
information regarding the Lady Flora Hastings Affair, periodicals such as the Satirist, John Bull, and the Age
provide more in depth information concerning what people thought during the
affair. Accordingly, this paper relies
heavily on information garnered from these periodicals because of their
sweeping clarity on contemporary views of gender roles in regard to the Lady
Flora Hastings Affair.
Historical Overview
Victoria’s childhood was replete with trials. Her father died when Victoria was very young
and she was raised exclusively by her mother, the Duchess of Kent, and her
mother’s comptroller, Sir John Conroy.
Conroy sought to dominate Victoria’s mother and hoped that by
controlling the Duchess of Kent he could control the future Queen. He devised a method for raising the young
princess, called the Kensington System, that kept Victoria isolated from her
peers and the King’s court. She was not
allowed to sleep in her own bedroom, but had to share one with her mother. She was not allowed to read popular books, or
attend social gatherings at court and thus she became resentful towards her
mother and her mother’s faction. Her
only ally growing up was her governess, the Baroness Lehzen. When Victoria received the news that she was
Queen, her first act was to spend an hour alone—her first ever, and to order
that she be given a room of her own.
Upon ascending to the throne she moved from
Kensington Palace to Buckingham Palace, becoming the first monarch to take up
residence there. Victoria wished to use
this move, separate her household from her mother’s but her Prime Minister,
Lord Melbourne advised her against it.
She was immediately popular with the people and enjoyed the new freedoms
she experienced. Her household came to
be dominated by her former governess, Baroness Lehzen. As Lehzen was fiercely anti-Conroy, and
Conroy was the dominating force in the Duchess of Kent’s household, tensions
grew. Partisans eagerly awaited the
opportunity to disturb the peace and in May of 1839 an opening was presented in
the form of the Lady Flora Hastings.
Lady Flora Hastings was the daughter of a formerly
influential Tory Lord. Victoria’s
faction was dominated by Whigs, the political opponent to the Tory Party. Lady Flora was fiercely loyal to Sir John
Conroy and had supported the Duchess and Sir John while Victoria was under the
Kensington System and for this reason Victoria resented her. Thus when Lady Flora returned to the palace
from the countryside late at night accompanied by Conroy and appeared the next
day feeling ill and with a swollen stomach rumors began to fly. The circumstances being suspect and out of
character with 19th century morality, Lady Flora was assumed
pregnant by Sir John Conroy—out of wedlock.
Several notable ladies of the court reported the
gossip to the Queen and Victoria believed them.
She ordered Lady Flora barred from the Royal presence and sent a doctor
to examine her. At first Lady Flora
objected and claimed innocence. She
appealed to her own doctor, who wrote the Queen to tell her that Lady Flora was
not to his knowledge pregnant. But
Victoria insisted that Sir James Clark, her own personal physician, perform a
naked examination to confirm Lady Flora’s virginity. Without any alternative, Lady Flora consented
to the examination, which confirmed her virginity. The Queen apologized and all would have been
well—however, the next morning, news of the affair was published in several reputable
newspapers.
The ensuing scandal decreased Victoria’s
popularity. The people sided with Lady
Flora, who they thought was mistreated.
Lady Flora’s brother, the Marquis of Hastings demanded that Lord
Melbourne—the Prime Minister, remove the gossiping ladies from the Court. Lord Melbourne refused to do so. The Dowager Marchioness Hastings, Lady
Flora’s mother, wrote to demand that some sort of punishment be met to the
offending ladies and again Lord Melbourne refused to take action. The scandal became a rallying cry against the
Whig government led by Melbourne and boosted Tory popularity. Lady Flora achieved martyr status, as she
died in June of 1839 from a cancerous tumor that caused her stomach to be
distended. Furthermore, by examining the
actions of the partisans one can better understand the acceptable gender roles
in the upper-class Victorian household and family.
Main Body
Lady
Flora, as a young woman member of the Court had several different roles to
play. She had to be the epitome of a
virtuous young single woman in the care of and caring for the Duchess of Kent,
she had to be a virtuous example, to the young women outside the Court, of
moral rectitude, and she had to demonstrate her devotion to her family as she
upheld the honor of the Hastings family.
Foremost,
as a member of the Duchess’ household, Lady Flora had to be the in forma substantiae, the essence of an
idealized young maiden attendant to the Duchess of Kent. In an article from the Satirist, the authors make clear their view of the women at
court as gossips and cynics. They
contrast the stereotypical idea of a lady-in-waiting with the old crones of
court. The article goes on to say that
these old gossips would have been preoccupied with the appearance of Lady Flora
and gone tattling to the Queen telling her that, “[the] condition of Lady Flora
as being one of flagrant and notorious pregnancy, and insisted upon the
disgrace which would accrue to the Court, from having an unmarried woman, in
such a state, in close attendance upon the mother of Her Majesty.”[4] This quote is highly informative because it
exposes several layers of the Queen’s household. First we see that the household of a maiden
queen was full of ladies. This is in
keeping with the 19th Century perception of morality that a maiden
should not be overly-exposed to the opposite sex. Additionally, the necessity for purity is
manifest in the language used to describe the scandal. Important to the role Lady Flora owned in the
Court is the last sentence which describes her relationship with the Duchess of
Kent and the vitality of her reputation.
It is apparent that Lady Flora, by virtue of her position was expected
to reflect the character of her patronne,
the Duchess of Kent.
Lady
Flora was supposed to be a virtuous example to the women outside of court because
of her association with the Queen’s mother and her proximity to the sovereign. This point is illustrated in a different
article printed in the Satirist where
the author writes about how unlikely it would be that a Lady—a woman—would, “with
a knowledge of her guilt, court exposure, and go on to the last moment
brazening out her crime, until the pains of parturition should
tear away all chance of concealment, and draw upon herself, the Court, and the
Queen, the execrations of the nation.”[5] The article, which speaks of the role of Sir
James Clarke, Physician to the Queen, in the scandal further demonstrates the
ramifications of a pregnant Lady Flora Hastings. It is clear from this article that all eyes were
on Lady Flora Hastings because of her public position. In 19th Century Britain, the
Court transformed from a very political role, under the early Hanoverians, to a
symbolic role that lead society. The
Queen was to “set the bar” for social norms and etiquette. As a member of the Court, specifically as
lady-in-waiting to the Duchess of Kent, Lady Flora’s every move would have been
reported in the Court Circular, in newspapers, and in Journals.
Finally, as a scion of the noble Hastings Family,
much would have been expected of her as a daughter and sister. Reverend Grundy writes about the
responsibilities of a daughter during the 19th Century. He writes, “In such a home one question will
be asked over and over again by the ideal daughter within herself; one thought
will abide daily in her heart—‘How can I help mother? How can I share her burden, ease her toils,
reliever her mind, and lift some of her cares out of the way?’”[6] As a daughter Lady Flora was obligated to
make the honor and comfort of her family her top concern and every action of
hers reflected the character of her family.
With her father dead, her mother and brother would inherit the devotion
previously given to her father.
The
scandal provides insight through the Duchess of Kent into the role of female
guardians. As Lady Flora’s patronne au Court the Duchess of Kent
would be censored to protect her and look after her. In an article written in the Satirist one reads, “She might have sent for her mother, and
committed to her an investigation which certainly was not a fit subject for a
maiden of nineteen. There were many
other courses which might have been pursued…Even the Baroness could hardly have
dared to suggest that the Duchess…might not be safely trusted with an
investigation into the character of one of her own household.”[7]
This article presents several interesting insights into the role of women in
society and in the household.
Specifically to the Duchess of Kent, the article makes clear that the
woman with absolute power over Lady Flora’s position at Court ought to be her
sponsor. The Duchess of Kent, as sponsor
to Lady Flora ought to have been given charge of the investigation because she
was directly responsible for Lady Flora’s conduct. The duchess would have been like a “mother-figure”
to Lady Flora, and, in return for the service Lady Flora provided as
lady-in-waiting, would have been responsible to help arrange a good marriage,
present her to well-connected individuals, help her to improve her
accomplishments, and look after her general well-being. The Duchess’ role was further entangled by
her relationship with the Queen. As the
estranged mother of a young maiden Queen, the Duchess of Kent would be
scrutinized and watched to see what power her example had to the young Queen
Victoria.
Queen
Victoria, by nature of who she was, found herself in a myriad of conflicting
roles in society. As a young lady, (aged
19 during this scandal) the Queen would have been considered a child and
expected to follow her mother’s guidance.
As a Constitutional Sovereign, Victoria would set the rules by which
Society ran and also be expected to exemplify the accepted rules of
society. As a daughter of the Duchess of
Kent, Victoria owed her mother respect and obedience—yet as her mother’s
Sovereign, her mother owed her daughter fealty.
Therefore it is unsurprising that early articles treating the scandal
are conflicted in their verdict on the Queen’s comportment. In an article written for the Satirist,
it was reported[8]
The Queen, however, did not act thus, and it is with almost
as much astonishment as sorrow that we contemplate the course which she did
pursue. A medical examination! A medical examination of a lady denied that
any grounds existed for the scandal against her, and who attributed the
appearance that accused her to natural and probable causes! And that horrible order prescribed by a
virgin Queen—one who must have most accurately felt the full extent of the
punishment and degradation which such a mode of vindication must impose! We cannot think upon the fact, and upon the
circumstances of its occurrence, without the most painful reflections;--we
cannot review them without the most unpleasant suspicions as to the fitness and
delicacy of feeling in one whom we would picture as all innocent, all pure, all
unspotted by matronly knowledge—all unsophisticated as to the facts which had
been brought before her.
Thus we see that the Queen
is held by Society’s standard to act a certain way that is becoming of a young
woman. She is supposed to be innocent,
perhaps even a little naïve. And yet,
she is Queen and the responsibility for affairs at Court lies with her. And yet as the Head of Household, she is
expected to be the ultimate font of justice, wisdom, and mercy. Another article by the Satirist states, when speaking about the continued royal
employment of Sir James Clark, “that it is disgraceful to the Queen and to her
Court that he should be suffered to continue about the Palace.”[9] As Queen, the behaviors of her courtiers
reflects her own attitude towards morality.
Almost equally upsetting to the public as Sir John Clark’s confessions,
as found in the article above, is that the Queen did nothing to punish him for
his transgression. The role of Queen
Victoria in her own household and in the public perception could fill several
volumes; however for the purpose of this paper she provides a good example of
both the expectations of a head of household and of a high-born young maiden.
Lord
Melbourne, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom during the scandal, occupied
an interesting role during the early reign of Queen Victoria. Deprived of a father figure for much of her
life, it is suspected that she looked to him as a father for advice and
comfort. As Prime Minister, he had to be
the protector of the Queen’s image. As
leader of the Whig party, he felt a need to be super politicized and yet
sought, above all, his own advancement.
He was an apt manipulator. In the
Figaro in London, Melbourne is
described, “like a Lilliputian Nero, (being in every way less than the monster
alluded to) would not mind playing the fiddle (if he knew how) while the
country was being torn to pieces, so long as he could only be as cosey and
comfortable as his lethargic disposition seems to require.”[10] Lord Melbourne, was popular with the people
but he was also hated. His relationship
with the electorate was weird. As a
father figure he felt the need to protect his young Queen. As a politician he sought his own
advancement.
Another example of male roles in the 19th
Century family come from the reports generated about the Marquis of Hastings,
Lady Flora’s brother and the head of the Hastings Family. With his sister’s reputation besmirched, the
noble Marquis ran eagerly to her aid. As
a Peer of England, he had the right to demand an audience with the Queen, which
he was granted. As seen in this article
from the Figaro in London the Marquis
was the epitome of loyalty.[11]
We are glad to find from a very spirited letter addressed by
the Marquis of Hastings to Lord Melbourne, that the former is resolved not to
let drop the rascally conspiracy against his sister, and that he will not let
even the slime of insignificance, or the crust of insensibility shield them
from the consequences of their disgusting and infamous conduct. The Marquis of Hastings seems strongly
impressed with the idea of that a scavenger is required at court, and he
appears to make himself the active person in the disagreeable process of
emptying the cess-pool of impurity—Buckingham Palace.
The Marquis was determined
to satisfy the demands of honor. As his
sister was wounded by the vicious gossips of the Court, he was determined that
those gossips lose their positions of influence. Lord Melbourne was determined to protect the
ladies of the Court, all friends to his cause and of the Queen. The result was an attempt at a government
cover-up. At first the Marquis believed
strongly that the Queen was innocent and simply sought justice. As the cover-up continued, Hastings realized
that he would have to continue his quest for vindication despite the Crown.
Hastings became a public hero because of his
dedication to his sister. His popularity
aided the Tory Party and he was seen as a reformer. The Figaro
continues, “We only notice the affair for the purpose of expressing our
admiration of the noble conduct of the Marquis Hastings, in coming forward to
vindicate the character of his sister, even though he must as it were, throw
his guantelet into the very face of royalty.”[12] The Marquis needed to vindicate his
sister—anything less would be a betrayal of his duty as her brother. His conduct exemplified the idealized role of
a brother. His loyalty to home and
family was admirable and demonstrated the standard for the period.
However, the Marquis of Hastings was not only Lady
Flora’s brother, as the current Marquis of Hastings he was the head of her
family, and therefore, he had to protect her and see to her well-being.[13]
Lord Hastings professes to be assured that
his sister was vilified and ill-treated by Lady Portman and Lady Tavistock, and
we dare say he is quite right ; but if he was so convinced, why did he not
resent it like a man, and take his sister away from a place where she was so
shamefully ill-treated? He tells us that
if he had done so, it would have been thought to afford some ground for
slander. This is childish and
nonsensical. The certificates of the two
surgeons which came out contemporaneously with the publication of the affair,
at once concluded that all doubt upon the subject—there never was a day when
the English public thought Lady Flora Hastings to be pregnant.
If Lady
Flora had resigned, everybody would have said that it was a very proper step in
her mother and brother to withdraw her from a society where she had been so
grievously insulted.
This role was complicated
by his loyalty to the Queen and to the Tory Party. The Tory Party, now called the Conservative
Party, believed firmly in the Sovereign.
The Hastings Family, Tories all, did not believe that anything was worth
threatening the stability of the Queen’s reign.
The Satirist further examines
this duplicitous loyalty saying, “he could not admit that he left his sister at
Buckingham Palace through the over-persuasions of his great political leader,
who was so anxious that by these means the Court should have an opportunity to
‘hush it up.’”[14] The Marquis of Hastings, like so many in this
scandal, had conflicting roles. Perhaps,
that is the best way to describe the 19th Century
Family—conflicted. The appearance of
unity was paramount. The ideals were
noble. The reality was much more
complicated—just like the families of today.
The Marchioness Dowager of Hastings, as the Lady
Flora Hastings’ mother, also held a complicated position. Her son was the Head of Household. Her political loyalties lay with the
Tories. Her social loyalties lay with
the Duchess. However, she remembered
Victoria from Victoria’s childhood. As a
mother she wanted to, and was obligated to seek the welfare of her child. As a loyal subject of the Queen she wanted to
believe that the Queen was the font of wisdom and grace.[15] As a loyal friend to the Duchess of Kent, she
wanted to keep the scandal quiet so as not to harm her daughter, her friend,
and her Sovereign. Thus her loyalties
were torn—that is, until Lord Melbourne’s rudeness towards her forced her to
appeal to the press. Only Lord
Melbourne’s ouster would enable justice to be met.
The public reaction to the scandal was mostly
sympathetic to Lady Flora Hastings. The
populace was mostly disgusted at the manner in which the noble women of the
court conducted themselves. This article
was published in the Satirist, which
castigates the court saying, “Will it be credited that such wretches are to be
found in England—wretches so callous and devoid of feeling as to sport with the
death-pangs of a virtuous and unoffending female? And yet such wretches there are in the
persons of women of exalted rank and presumed virtue.”[16]
This quote demonstrates the heat of the rhetoric used against women who “unsexed”
themselves and betrayed the womanly ideal. At the onset, the public did not
blame the Queen however, as time wore on they became disillusioned with
Victoria and resented that she did not protect the honor of Lady Flora. They were disgusted with the “political
machinations” of Lord Melbourne. The
next election temporarily ousted Lord Melbourne and his return, a few days
later, returned him with no support from either Commons or Lords.[17]
Conclusion
The
awful turn of events that launched a scandal in Victoria’s Court, is remarkable
beyond its scope as an intriguing tale of court plots and scandal. The Lady Flora Hastings Affair demonstrates
quite clearly the roles of men and women in the upper class family and the
importance of the cult of domesticity. Lady Flora Hastings was tragically caught in
the cross fire of Lord Melbourne’s political machinations and suffered great
angst because of it.
In the Queen’s favor, she attempted numerous times to
reconcile with Lady Flora. And while she
was unwilling to punish the gossips that caused the scandal she did attempt to
repair the damages caused by her actions.[18] To Lady Flora’s credit, on her deathbed she
asked one of the ladies present to tell the Queen that she did not blame her in
the slightest.
This triumph of forgiveness shows how deeply the
values of the period influenced the two young women and again supports the
ideal of femininity. Though the people
were angry about the purported “misconduct” of the Court and Cabinet—truthfully
all of them fulfilled their duties as prescribed by their roles in society and
family—albeit with perhaps too much vigor and too little love. It is equally clear that the Lady Flora
Hastings affair shows that gender roles were deeply entrenched in the
upper-classes. The 19th
Century emphasis on family was what saved Victoria in the end. When she married Prince Albert, Victoria’s
popularity soared. Albert helped effect
a reconciliation between Victoria and her mother, the Duchess of Kent. Family unity and family values became the
emphasis of the Monarchy and Lord Melbourne lost power, never to regain
it.
[1] Crozier-De Rosa, Sharon. 2009. “Marie Corelli's
British New Woman: A threat to
empire?” The History of the
Family 14, no. 4: 416-429.
[2] Barker, Hannah. 2009. A grocer's tale: Gender, family
and class in early nineteenth-century Manchester. Gender & History 21, no. 2:
340-357.
[3] Manchester, William. Winston Spencer Churchill The Last Lion:
Alone (1932-1940). Dell Publishing: New York, New York. 1988. Print
[4] “We speak, we
believe, the sentiments of every manly heart.” 1839. The Satirist;
Or, the Censor of the Times no. 366: 124.
[5] “The actors
in the affair of Lady FLORA HASTINGS are somewhat like the nine worthies in
Love's Labour's Lost.” 1839. The Satirist; Or, the Censor of the
Times, October 13, 1839.
[6] Fahey,
D. M. 2005. “Inside the Victorian home: A portrait of domestic life in
Victorian England.” Choice 42, no. 6: 1086.
[7] “We speak, we believe, the sentiments of every manly heart.” 1839. The
Satirist; Or, the Censor of the Times no. 366: 124.
[8] “We speak, we believe, the sentiments of every manly heart.” 1839. The
Satirist; Or, the Censor of the Times no. 366: 124.
[9] “The actors in the affair of Lady FLORA HASTINGS are somewhat like the
nine worthies in love's labour's lost.” 1839. The Satirist; Or, the
Censor of the Times, October 13, 1839.
[13] “While we
were taking leave of the affair of Lady FLORA HASTINGS.” 1839. The Satirist;
Or, the Censor of the Times no. 388: 300.
[14] “While we
were taking leave of the affair of lady FLORA HASTINGS.” 1839. The
Satirist; Or, the Censor of the Times no. 388: 300.
[15] “Correspondence
which has taken place between the Marchioness Dowager of HASTINGS and Lord
MELBOURNE.” 1839. John Bull no. 958: 187.
[17] “The late
Russelling (rustling) in the House of Commons is regarded as the preliminary of
a stir in Downing-Street.” 1839. The Satirist; Or, the Censor of
the Times: 102.
[18] Victoria Regina. The Letters
of Queen Victoria, Volume 1 (of 3), 1837-1843): A Selection from Her
Majesty's Correspondence between the Years 1837 and 1861. Edited by: Arthur
Christopher Benson and Viscount Esher. December 5, 2006.
No comments:
Post a Comment