Elizabeth of York: The First Tudor Queen by Alison Weir

 

elizabeth-york
Image from Amazon.co.uk

Elizabeth of York was the first Tudor queen.  When we think of the Tudors, our thoughts fly first to the notorious Henry VIII, and to another queen called Elizabeth, but Elizabeth Tudor is often overlooked.

I first became intrigued about this interesting and admirable lady when the BBC showed an adaptation of Philippa Gregory’s The White Queen.  This is a brilliant, engrossing series which I would recommend to anyone with an interest in historical drama but what it led me to read was something more factual and more focused: Alison Weir’s Elizabeth of York, The First Tudor Queen.  Though fascinating and unbelievably dramatic, I was always felt very confused about Medieval royal history in Britain.  I know there were several kings called Edward, there was someone called Elizabeth Woodville (whom I had previously supposed was the same person as Elizabeth of York), and there was a long series of wars called ‘The Wars of the Roses’, which ended with Richard III’s death, and Henry Tudor’s ascent to the throne.  After that, things become clearer to me with the dawn of the Tudors.  I was very thankful, therefore, to find that Alison Weir begins her biography by explaining something of the politics of the time and about Elizabeth’s parentage.  It turns out that Elizabeth Woodville was Elizabeth Tudor’s mother.  A young widow with two children, she married King Edward IV in 1464 and bore him several children, of whom Elizabeth of York was one, as well as two sons who went on to become those poor little princes in the Tower of dark historical fame.  The marriage was a happy one and Elizabeth Plantagenet enjoyed a happy childhood, but her troubles began when her father died suddenly in 1483.  This is perhaps also when Elizabeth’s true strength of character was formed.  A hangover from the years before Edward IV’s relatively stable reign, as soon as he was dead, various factions began vying for the crown.  His sons were probably captured and murdered; by whom remains a mystery to this day.  Elizabeth Woodville kept the rest of her family safe in the sanctuary of Westminster Abbey.

Elizabeth Woodville
Elizabeth Woodville

In July 1483, Richard, Elizabeth’s uncle was crowned king and Elizabeth had to live not only with the devastating realisation that two of her siblings, (to whom she was allegedly very close) were probably dead, but also with resentment as, in these tragic circumstances, she should have inherited the throne. To appease matters, Richard eventually invited Elizabeth, along with her sisters to court.  At this time, several rumours began to circulate that Richard in fact desired his niece and even killed his wife, Anne Neville so that he could marry her.  In her biography, Weir dismisses these rumours, and clears Elizabeth of any desirous feelings herself.  Instead, she had her betrothal to a young man named Henry Tudor to keep her going.

In 1485, King Richard III was killed at the Battle of Bosworth Field.  Shortly afterwards, Henry Tudor, against whom he had been fighting was crowned king.  One of his first actions was to inform his parliament of his intentions to marry Elizabeth of York.  The wedding took place in January 1486, and resulted in widespread celebrations and jubilation all over the country.

elizabeth-and-henry
Elizabeth of York and Henry VII (image from thehistoryvault.co.uk)

From the very beginning, Elizabeth was a popular queen.  She represented a unity between two families and an end to the bloody wars that had raged on for years.  She also conducted herself exactly as a renaissance queen was expected to.  In many ways, she complimented her husband, who is generally remembered as someone who could appear rather cold and harsh.  Elizabeth emerges from the pages of Weir’s biography as someone who was warm, grounded, clever and loving.  She enjoyed a very happy marriage to Henry Tudor, who seems genuinely to have loved her despite the arranged and political nature of their union.  Together, they had several children, one of whom grew up to become King Henry VIII.  He was allegedly always very fond of his mother and felt her loss acutely when she eventually died.  One interesting narrative thread that Weir explores is the sense of quiet and uncomfortable unease with which both Elizabeth and Henry must have lived surrounding the legitimacy of their claims to the throne.  As far as many people were concerned at the time, Elizabeth was the true royal in their marriage and it was through Henry’s marriage to her that he achieved his right to the throne.  There was also the dark shadow cast over Elizabeth by the uncertainty of what had happened to her brothers all those years before when she was effectively a captive in Westminster Abbey.  If it ever turned out that her brother, Edward, had not been killed, but had in fact perhaps been living abroad until it was safe for him to return, then where would that place her and her husband.  More tantalising is the question of how would she have felt?  In 1497, she was faced with such a dilemma when a young man named Perkin Warbeck claimed that he was Edward V and attempted to invade England.  He eventually surrendered to the king’s army and was hanged on 23rd November 1499. Without wishing to trivialise the emotions that must have been felt by the husband and wife, such events must have created a significant amount of awkwardness, resentment, suspicion and maybe even guilt between the couple.

Despite their tempestuous beginnings in life, Elizabeth and Henry were successful rulers; their reign was one of stability, peace and economic growth.  Their marriage was mutually supportive, fair and affectionate.

On the 11th February 1503, Elizabeth died a few days after giving birth to a daughter.  Her death though the result of a short illness, was unexpected and untimely.  She was widely mourned and Henry shut himself away for six weeks after the funeral, suffering mentally and physically.  Indeed, Weir argues that from this point on, Henry’s health steadily declined until he died in 1509.

henry-vii-tomb
Image from henrytudorsociety

A couple of months ago, I visited Westminster Abbey with my brother.  I had not been there since I was a little girl and so my memories were hazy, but I remembered having been very impressed by the glorious and ostentatious tomb of Elizabeth I, and that of her cousin, Mary Queen of Scots.  This time, it was the tomb of Elizabeth of York that arrested my walking and forced me to stop and contemplate.  Standing there below her saintly carved image, it was moving to consider the gentle and romantic queen lying somewhere close by.

Advertisements

A Comparison of Adaptations: Mansfield Park

mansfielkd-park

As a costume drama junkie with a fondness for comparing different adaptations of the same novel, I have decided to do just this in the hope that some may enjoy the same.  Jane Austen adaptations seemed a good place to start as they are amongst some of the most popular.

There are three television adaptations, of which I am aware, of Austen’s lesser-read novel, Mansfield Park.  I am going to begin with the most recent.  In 2007, ITV showed three new Jane Austen adaptations, each with something new to add to the stories they retold.  Mansfield Park starred Billie Piper as perhaps Austen’s least popular heroine, Fanny Price, and Blake Ritson as Edmund Bertram – possibly the wettest of Austen’s heroes.  In compensation for Fanny’s reputation as an intensely annoying, saccharine character, Piper played her as someone much more wilful and sharp witted.  Ritson’s Edmund was still wet but a little more endearing than other portrayals I have seen.  Those of you who have read Mansfield Park will know that it is a long novel, which, somewhat unusually for Austen, subtly addresses several key controversial issues of the regency period in England.  Of course, there is the usual satire and social commentary.  Through her forthright and outspoken anti-heroine, Mary Crawford, she pokes fun at the customs and rules surrounding the idea of a young lady being ‘out’ or ‘not out’*, she makes fun of the clergy, and questions the idea that people of the upper class are really any more refined or sophisticated than anyone else.  However, she also explores marital infidelity, the perils of gambling and drinking to excess and a huge amount of literature to date has explored the issues surrounding the head of the Bertram family, Sir Thomas, and his sugar plantations.  This is, therefore, a big novel to adapt for screen and each version I have seen has focused on a slightly different area.  In this version, Sir Thomas appears as a rather dark and unpleasant character for much of the time, though there are some interesting scenes between him and his children which show a softer, more understanding side to his nature.

mansfield-park-2007-blake-ritson-and-billie-piper
Image from janeaustenfilmclub.blogspot.co.uk

The first half of this adaptation is largely true to the novel, save for the slight alterations in Fanny’s character, but I was disappointed that rather than including scenes of Fanny’s return to her family in Portsmouth (for me one of the most poignant and emotional parts of this story) it instead has the Bertram family leaving Fanny behind to be alone at Mansfield Park so that she can see what it would be like to live a life of loneliness if she does not marry Henry Crawford.

The ending of this adaptation was, again, different to the novel, but rather more romantic and not without charm.  Sir Thomas and Lady Bertram are shown as being very much in favour of the match between Edmund and Fanny after all the drama they have previously faced, and Fanny becomes a lot more grown up and even more carnal in this final part – something that I feel is needed in this romance between two cousins who have grown up together almost as brother and sister.  I have always found it slightly difficult to understand how Edmund comes to see Fanny in this light – how does someone go from seeing someone almost as a sister to seeing them as a lover?  But this drama handles the transition as well as possible, and in the end, it is easy to be happy for Fanny and Edmund and to believe that they should be together.

fanny-price
Image from youtube.com

The second adaptation that I am going to discuss is the 1999 film, starring Frances O’Conner and Jonny Lee Miller as the lead characters.  This is an unusual adaption in that it merges scenes and writing from Jane Austen’s own life with that of her heroine’s.  In one early scene, when we are being introduced to the character of Fanny, we see her writing her own History of England, a work which Austen herself produced when she was fifteen.  This version is the fastest paced and most dramatic of the adaptations.  Fanny is, again, updated for a modern audience and is presented as feisty and self-assured.  There is a strong strain of comedy running throughout this film presented through Fanny’s own interpretation of events, and this is an interesting aspect to add to what is arguably the darkest of Austen’s novels.  Perhaps the writer, Patricia Rozema, felt it would be needed as this version does tend to emphasise these baser subjects – I am thinking particularly of the moment when Fanny discovers a sketch book of Tom Bertram’s filled with horrific drawings depicting the cruelty faced by the slaves on his father’s plantation.  This is used as the reason behind his difficult relationship with his father.  Another difference between this adaptation and the book is the slightly bizarre decision to turn Fanny’s beloved brother from the novel into a beloved sister, or rather, to elevate the relationship between Fanny and Susan and to completely omit the character of William Price.  Although this allows for some more intimate conversations to take place between the two sisters, it is a shame, as this is one of more important relationships in the novel, not to mention the role it plays in teasing the readers about the integrity and morality of Henry Crawford’s character. Mary Crawford, played by Embeth Davidtz is almost completely unlikable in this film and, as in the novel, it is when she speaks her mind once too often and reveals her hopes of marriage to Edmund only when he has been elevated to Sir Edmund upon the untimely death of his older brother that Edmund begins to notice Fanny and to see her as a potential wife.  What this film has going for it is a lovely soundtrack, a much more modern focus, and lead characters who feel somehow more tangible than in other versions, not to mention the odd laugh here and there.

bbc
Image from austenefforts.blogspot.co.uk

The final version I am going to discuss is my favourite.  The BBC mini-series was made in 1983 and starred Sylvestra Le Touzel and Nicholas Farrell as Fanny and Edmund.  This is by far the most faithful to the novel and due to its length, it is able to reproduce the story almost chapter for chapter.  It is very much of its time in that many of its scenes are devoted to dialogue rather than action, Georgian phrases with which a modern audience may not be familiar are repeated by the actors, and the costumes are historically accurate rather than necessarily attractive or flattering.  However, for all these things, I love it and find it rather comforting and engaging to watch.  One feels that when Austen wrote this novel, this is what she saw in her head.

fanny-and-henry
Image from theassemblyrooms.blogspot.co.uk

As in the novel, the mini-series glosses over much of the darker subject matter which more modern adaptations have brought to the fore, and instead the characters and their interactions with one another are what matter.  Sir Thomas Bertram is played by the wonderful Bernard Hepton and although still authoritative, this is probably the gentlest portrayal of the different adaptations.  The same can be said Angela Pleasance’s Lady Bertram.  Mary Crawford (played by Jackie Smith-Wood) is very likable in this version but, of course, deeply floored.  I find it an interesting decision of the writer’s to included so many conversations between Edmund and Fanny in which he tries to understand Mary’s character, and more importantly to explain away her faults due to the people to whom she has been exposed.  Farrell’s Edmund is unavoidably feeble in some scenes but he also shows a lot of tenderness towards Fanny which helps to explain the attraction she feels towards her cousin.  Le Touzel’s Fanny Price is possibly the closest to the heroine of the novel.  She is always good and moral, shy and steadfast.  She is also incredibly awkward at times and full to the brim of unexpressed passion and emotion.  Perhaps I am alone in not actually finding Fanny Price as insipid as some others seem to, and perhaps this is why I prefer Le Touzel’s portrayal.  The final declaration of love in this version is quiet and matter of fact, as it is in Austen’s novel.  It could be somewhat disappointing and understated for a modern audience but it is faithful and so, for some, could be just what one wants from a Jane Austen adaptation.

A review of Poldark (contains spoilers)

poldark-bbc-independent
Image from The Independent Times

Poldark combines two of my greatest loves – Cornwall and, of course, period drama.  This second series was long awaited, as it had been over a year since the end of series one when the first episode was finally aired.

The first series saw the return of Captain Ross Poldark to his home in Cornwall after three years of fighting in the American War of Independence.  Here, he is dismayed to find that his father has died, his home is neglected and his former love, Elizabeth, has become engaged to his cousin, Francis.  He nevertheless picks himself up and between marrying his kitchen maid, Demelza and re-establishing his home, also becomes a figurehead to the people of his land by helping them to regain control of their homes and their tin mines from the greedy aristocratic Warleggan family.

When, in 2013, it was first announced that there was to be a remake of the classic and hugely popular Poldark (first shown in the 1970s) there was outrage from fans who believed that nothing could be better than the 1975 BBC version.  However, since then, this modern version has also enjoyed great success, fetching in an audience of 5.1 million viewers for the first episode of series two.

I cannot comment on the comparison between the two productions, as I have never seen the 1975 version.  Nor can I comment on whether Aidan Turner’s Poldark is true to the original character in Winston Graham’s series of novels.  However, I can review the series simply as I have seen it.

scenery-bbc
Image from BBC website

The music and the scenery in this drama are both stunning.  The opening sequence gives me goose pimples each time it is shown, and I particularly liked the way that folk songs, usually sung by Demelza are woven into the soundtrack of many of the episodes.  This drama celebrates its location as much time is devoted to showing the breath-taking beauty of Cornwall –  its rugged, untamed cliffs, the glittering sea, the grand, elegant houses…they all combine to make this programme a pleasure to watch –  a treat for the eyes.  Let’s not forget the stunningly good looking cast too; they’re equally as indulgent to watch.  Aidan Turner, who has now become almost as famous for his topless Poldark scenes as Colin Firth became for his ‘wet shirt scene’ in the BBC’s Pride and Prejudice, plays a character who is very human and full of faults, despite being the hero of the piece.  In series two, I think we see more of this than in the first when, as far as I can remember, his good-guy status was pretty well fixed.  Now that he has been married to Demelza for some years, this series switches focus somewhat to examine Ross’ relationship with Elizabeth and those feelings which we cannot shake that he has never completely gotten over her.  This is, of course, is what lead to the controversial episode which caused all the outrage – the one in which he finally seduces Elizabeth, or perhaps it was the other way around.  Whichever it was, the only outrage I felt was at Ross’s betrayal of Demelza and I think the emotional fallout was played superbly by all the actors involved, particularly Eleanor Tomlinson.  The scenes in which Demelza toys with taking revenge on her unfaithful husband by sleeping with Captain McNeil were horribly believable to watch, but luckily her character was restored to form for any viewer who loves Demelza for her loyalty and innate goodness.

emotion
Image from Daily Express website

There is also the relationship between Poldark and George Warleggan which takes precedence in this series.  After George effectively tries to get Poldark hanged in episode one, the tension understandably grows between the two, to the extent that George seems to be after everything that Ross holds dear – his mine, his family and even the supposed love of his life, Elizabeth.  This enmity between the two provides a gripping narrative for the second series that sees many of the other characters harmed or sometimes elevated in the viewers’ eyes.

george
Image from BBC website

Poldark is not a cosy, reassuring period drama to watch on a Sunday night as, for example, a Jane Austen adaptation might be.  But it is exciting, visually stunning, passionate and engrossing.  This second series has certainly persuaded me to go back and re-watch the first series (which did not capture my imagination quite as much) and I am looking forward to series three.  Let’s hope it’s not such a long wait this time!

A Review of Victoria

 

queen-vic
Image from ITV.com

A couple of weeks ago, ITV’s lavish period drama, Victoria finished and this has left many people with an empty void in their late Sunday evenings.  These people are, of course, missing the crucial point that Poldark is still showing on BBC One, nevertheless, the fact remains that in losing our weekly dose of Victoria, we have lost a very entertaining, very visually appealing, very engaging piece of drama.  The good news is that it is already set to return for another series in 2017, thus continuing the story of Queen Victoria’s life.

I was not sure what I would make of Victoria before it was shown.  Regular readers might remember that I mentioned it before in another post, along with my concerns that there already exists a very good drama about Queen Victoria’s life starring Victoria Hamilton and Jonathan Firth.  However, this drama, starring Jenna Coleman had a very different feel to it, and I could appreciate it in its own right.

rufus
Image from radiotimes website

The first episode dealt mainly with Victoria’s life before she became queen, with Catherine Flemming doing a wonderful job of representing the loving but ambitious Duchess of Kent and Paul Rhys playing the notoriously unpleasant Sir John Conroy.  And there was Rufus Sewell.  He featured heavily in the first few episodes, which was highly pleasing, and then pretty much seemed to completely disappear.  At first, I wondered if I had missed something.  Had Melbourne mentioned that he was going away?  Had he become ill, or had he died and had I simply zoned out at the relevant moment?  However, at the same time, I was reading A. N. Wilson’s Victoria: A Life, and this seems to actually be what happened.  After Victoria married Albert, Melbourne (with whom, contrary to what I had previously thought, she had shared a strange sort of unsuitable, undeclared romance) was frozen out and forgotten by Victoria so that it soon became painful for him even to ride in his carriage past Buckingham Palace (according to A.N. Wilson).  When he did eventually die, Victoria, who was by then the mother of six children seemed to regard the event so little, she gave it one short, sentence-long mention in her diary. So, the loss of Sewell’s character was great indeed, however, this is also when I felt the story line seemed to pick up the pace a little.  Tom Hughes, whose looks seem to match Queen Victoria’s own description of Prince Albert played a very convincing role and represented the prince as slightly more introverted and undemonstrative than in other dramas.  However, this too, chimes with the way in which history seems to view Victoria’s grounding and intelligent husband.  Coleman herself played a very youthful and emotional Victoria who, despite her impulsiveness and at times, her carelessness of other people’s feelings, was easy to warm to.  It was the scenes which involved the royal couple that were my favourite to watch.  It was refreshing and comforting to watch a drama which, at this stage of the series at least, shows two young people falling in love and making their start in life, and seems to celebrate this.  The parts which showed the servants and their story lines were less appealing to me, simply because I was watching this drama to find out about the life of Victoria.  To me, their scenes felt like an interruption to the main story line; it felt almost as if the servants should have had their own series, something akin to ITV’s Downton Abbey or the BBC’s Servants.

victoria-albert
Image from ITV.com

All in all, I really enjoyed this series.  Yes, some events were exaggerated or changed slightly for dramatic effect, but if we’re not too bothered about the historical accuracy and desire instead something that is easy to follow and weaves a strong narrative to the early life of this much-analysed queen, then this drama certainly provides that.  I am already looking forward to the next series.

A few things I learnt on a V&A Study Day…

v-and-a150logo290

A few weeks ago, a good friend and I treated ourselves to a V and A study day on costume design for costume drama. I wasn’t sure what to expect and as the date drew nearer I did have some forebodings, fearing I might actually have signed myself up for something like hard work during my precious free time. However, what followed was actually a thoroughly pleasant way to spend a Saturday – a chance to be talked at by some real experts about something I adore.  If you’re reading this, then I’m assuming you may adore it too and so here are a few gems I’d like to share:

  1. The day began with an introduction to the costume house, COSPROP. This was set up by John Bright 50 years ago and is widely used by costume designers. It also includes a number of real costumes which date, I believe, back to the Georgian era.
  2. Several costume dramas use pieces that are actually from the era being portrayed. This is more common in earlier costume dramas due to the garments becoming more fragile with age. In Merchant Ivory’s A Room with a View, Helena Bonham Carter is wearing a real Edwardian gown in the famous fainting scene.
george-and-lucy-in-florence
Image from saxonhenry.com

3. One of the most interesting talks of the day was given by John Bloomfield, who amongst other things, designed the costumes for the 1970s BBC production of The Six Wives of Henry VIII. This is often held up as a hugely successful television show, which paved the way for other successful costume dramas to follow (Elizabeth R, Poldark, The Onedin Line). I’ve watched this series time and time again and never noticed how each important family had its own colour palette for their costumes – oranges, warm browns and reds for the Boleyns/Howards, Green for the Seymours and everyone else in either black and silver or black and gold.

1684a8d964cfa248fc1a06c9afc68e06
Image from pinterest.com

4. Each episode of The Six Wives had a budget of only £2000 for costumes. Therefore, many of the jewels that sparkle so magnificently on the costumes are actually painted bits of cardboard, screws, curtain rings, name plates and lots of PVA.

5. The costumes were designed to reflect the Tudor portraits of Hans Holbein.

6. Almost all historical costume that you see on screen begins with the underwear.  The actors and actresses do tend to wear full replica historical underwear to give their clothes the desired shape and structure.

7. Most actors and actresses are very involved in the costume design process. Their preferences and ideas about the characters they are playing are often taken largely into consideration. Jenny Beavan regaled us with stories about Vanessa Redgrave’s input on her character’s costume in Howard’s End, and how, in the end, her decisions worked for the best

8. During the final part of the day, the stage was filled with some of the designers and makers who worked on the costumes for Downton Abbey. Like many other productions, this too uses real pieces from the Edwardian era, mainly for the maids’ aprons.

9. Each Crawley sister has her own colour palette, meant to reflect the ways in which real people dress, i.e. we tend to find two or three colours that suit us and own several garments in these hues.

the-crawley-sisters-the-crawley-sisters-31850065-500-339
Image from fanpop.com

10. For the last year, COSPROP has been working on conserving and consolidating its vast and wonderful collection of authentic historical costumes so that each one could be photographed and enjoyed by the likes of you and me on a website, which is currently underway. In the meantime, you can visit https://www.facebook.com/CostumeHeritage/ to see the updates and glimpses of what is to come.

My Cousin Rachel Review

mycousinrachel

In recent years, I have been growing fonder and fonder of Daphne du Maurier as an author.  My first encounter with her work was, I fear, a little too early, when I was too young to appreciate it and I found the long, descriptive passages that introduce her novel, Frenchman’s Creek, impossible to get past.  However, in recent years, I have had another go, not with this particular novel, but with possibly her most famous work, Rebecca and then with Jamaica Inn.  I loved them both, especially Jamaica Inn which I now regard as one of my favourite novels.

My Cousin Rachel has been sitting on my shelf for quite some time now.  I was saving it for when I would at last have some proper time to really get stuck in to another exciting, gripping and romantic story.  I took it down and skimmed the blub on the back.  Certain phrases jumped out at me: ‘orphaned’, ‘resolutely single’, ‘mysterious woman’, ‘grand house’, it was already ticking all of the boxes.  The actual experience of reading this novel was, however, far from what I had expected.  First of all, this story is not a romance.  I did suspect it might be for a few pages when the aforementioned ‘resolutely single’ and sardonic protagonist and narrator, Philip Ashley first meets his cousin Rachel after weeks of hating the thought of her.  Such a plot structure is used in novels such as Pride and Prejudice, North and South, etc.  I thought that was where this was going.  But this idea was quickly extinguished by the rather stronger strain of mystery that runs through this book.

Just as with Rebecca, in My Cousin Rachel, we as readers are at the mercy of the narrator and the way that he perceives things.  Thus, we are drawn into his claustrophobic, old fashioned, male-dominated world from the start.  No matter how well we might know Florence in Italy, or how many pictures we might have seen of it looking just lovely, when we go with Philip, we want to leave as soon as possible, because there is something very sinister about it.  Back in his large, lonely, dusty house in Cornwall, we breathe a sigh of relief, for we are home. Du Maurier paints a vivid picture of her settings, just as she does in her other novels, yet all the while, we feel somehow detached, perhaps because we are never told specifically when this novel is set (references to Philip’s cravat and Rachel’s dresses would suggest that it is sometime during the nineteenth century).  We are never given the name of the Ashley estate or even the location.  And all we have to rely on for what is happening and how people are behaving is Philip’s account.  Even this is, at times such as when he becomes very ill, made blatantly untrustworthy.

Philip Ashley is a complex character and, as with Rachel, my opinion of him was tossed and turned about several times throughout the novel.  In general, because he is the protagonist and seemingly harmless, I was disposed to like him, or at least to sympathise with him when it looked like things were not going his way.  Rachel always seemed like a much more confident and controlled character.  She did not need my support.  Even in those moments of weakness that du Maurier allows her, I could never fully trust in her because of the seeds of doubt that Philip had already planted.

When one reflects on the plot of this book, not much actually happens.  After Philip’s trip to Florence in the first few chapters, the rest of the action all takes place in Cornwall, in and around his house.  So much of what is described is the characters’ day to day lives: their visits to church, their walks around the gardens, the occasional trip to the bank.  Nevertheless, this story is just as compelling as that of Rebecca, and just as mysterious.  It is the characters who engage our interest.  The ways in which they speak, the expressions which Philip perceives and reads into in Rachel’s face and movements, the emotions that he describes – these are the tools that du Maurier uses to keep us hooked and to keep us guessing as to who can really be trusted in this novel.

The ending felt very abrupt to me – I think that that is what du Maurier probably intended.  It was so abrupt that I had to re-read that final page at least three times before I could conjure up any emotions about what had happened.  Then, of course, I tried to unpick it.  Had there been any clues as to what was about to happen?  Were we meant to expect this?  Was it in fact an accident?  But in the end, I was left to keep on guessing.  Even the repetition of the opening two lines to the novel used so effectively to end it proved more to tantalise than to explain.  Perhaps that is why My Cousin Rachel, first published in 1951, continues to be such a successful and widely read mystery novel.  Du Maurier leaves it open to the reader to form their own opinions of Rachel, though everyone I have spoken to has come to the same conclusion as myself.  It will be interesting to see what spin the upcoming film adaptation (directed by Roger Michell and due for release in 2017) will put on it.

The Foundling Museum

foundling-museum-1536 artfund.org
The Foundling Museum, image from artfund.org

Dear Reader,

Today, inspired by Wendy Moore’s How to Create the Perfect Wife, I decided to pay a visit to The Foundling Museum, in Brunswick Square, London.  This relatively small museum opened in 2004 and explores the history of the UK’s first children’s charity, the Foundling Hospital.

In 18th century London, 75% of children died before they reached their 5th birthday – this startling fact greets you as you step through the door to the first exhibition room and sets the tone for a moving experience that opens one’s eyes to why this charity (which is still in operation today in the form of   Coram) was so desperately important.

Thomas Coram_0_0 coram.org.uk
                                  Thomas Coram                                                         Image from coram.org.uk

The Foundling hospital was first set up by a former sea captain called Thomas Coram.  Upon returning home from America, where he had been living for twenty years, he was shocked to see the terrible conditions in which London’s poorer people lived.  Most shocking of all, was the number of babies he saw being abandoned every day on the streets, on road sides and even on top of rubbish heaps.  He decided that something must be done to save these innocent children’s lives.  The problem was that, kind-hearted though he may have been, he lacked the financial means to bring his idea to fruition.  He campaigned relentlessly for seventeen years and planned strategically whom he would approach to ask for help.  The book in which he wrote this list of wealthy personages can be seen at the Foundling Museum with the names of several duchesses, dukes, countesses and so on, all written in neat little handwriting.  Important in providing substantial support for Coram was the famous artist, William Hogarth and the composer, George Frideric Handel.  Finally, in 1739, King George II granted permission for the scheme to go ahead and in 1741, the first babies were admitted to the hospital.  As a visitor, you can go into the room that mothers would have been taken to when they wanted to give their baby up to the charity.  The anguish that they must have felt and the miserable circumstances that may have brought them there; the heart-wrenching sense of their desperation seems still to hang in the air alongside the very clear understanding that this hospital was unquestionably a force for good.

Poverty, abandonment by the father, widowhood, the shame of illegitimacy and even crime were some of the reasons for why so many babies were abandoned in 18th century London.  The Foundling Hospital provided somewhere for the babies to be taken, where they would be safe.  Upon admission, every mother was questioned as to the reason for her bringing her baby there; if the reason was not deemed strong enough, then she was sent away still in possession of her baby.  If the baby was accepted, then he or she was given a number, a new name, and a token which the mother was expected to provide in case she should ever want to reclaim her child.  It would enable her to prove her identity.  This was often a scrap of fabric cut from the infant’s clothes, though in a large glass case on the wall, there can be seen several other examples of the sorts of things that parents left as tokens for their children.  This, to me, felt like the most tragic exhibit on display.  When you look at this, you get a sense of the real people who had to do this.  Some of the tokens are simple household items – thimbles, the arm of a doll, cards, a pot of rouge, coins – probably all that the mother could afford to give.  Some of them were more personalised and included pieces of jewellery or coins with one side rubbed smooth so that a message could be engraved.  These tokens suggest an intention of the parent to be reunited with their child should their circumstances ever change or at least, to let them know that they were loved.  Sadly, few children ever did see their parents again.  Most were apprenticed out when they were about nine years old – boys to the army and girls into service.  Thankfully, there are records on display of what happened to some of the children, having been taken care of, provided with adequate meals every day and medical care so that they could survive, be discharged by the hospital and make their way in the world.  In 1954, the Foundling Hospital placed their last pupil in foster care and, as I mentioned before, it remains today as a charity, continuing to help disadvantaged children in excess of the 25,000 it helped from the mid 1700s to the mid 1900s.

FoundlingRestored
‘The Foundling Restored to its Mother’ by Emma Brownlow ,     image from foundlingmuseum.org.uk

The Foundling Museum was Britain’s first public art gallery, to which artists have been donating their work in order to raise money for the cause since the 18th century.  This is still the case today, and on your visit, you can see works by Hogarth, portraits of various notable personages from the hospital’s early days, a bust of Handel, a series of sentimental Victorian oil paintings depicting scenes from foundling life and several modern installations.  One which I rather liked was called ‘Brontëan Abstracts’, by Cornelia Parker.  On the top floor, you can see items to do with George Fridreric Handel, including the will which he wrote in his own hand.

The museum is open every day apart from Mondays and costs £8.25 if you are an adult wishing to see the permanent collection, though if you are a member of the National Trust, it is worth bringing your card along as you can enter for £4.25.  It is a couple of pounds extra if you want to see the additional exhibition, which changes regularly.  I really wanted to make the most of my visit and it took me about an hour and a half to walk around.  I would thoroughly recommend this museum to anyone who is interested in historical social conditions, people’s personal stories from history, women’s history, art and of course, classical music.

For those who are interested, the web address from Coram is http://www.coram.org.uk/

coram
Coram logo