George Dance the Younger, Georgian Architect and Founding Member of the Royal Academy of Arts

George Dance the Younger RA (1 April 1741 – 14 January 1825) was an English architect and surveyor and a portraitist. The fifth and youngest son of the architect George Dance the Elder, he came from a family of architects, artists and dramatists. He was described by Sir John Summerson as “among the few really outstanding architects of the century,” but few of his buildings remain.

Background and education

	British Gallery, Pall Mall (engraving of the British Institution building at 52 Pall Mall, London, formerly John Boydell's Shakespeare Gallery) Date 1851

British Gallery, Pall Mall (engraving of the British Institution building at 52 Pall Mall, London, formerly John Boydell’s Shakespeare Gallery)
Date 1851

The architect George Dance the elder married Elizabeth Gould in 1719. Their fifth son, George, was born 1 April 1741 at the family home in Chiswell Street City of London. Dance was educated at the St. Paul’s School, London.

Dance spent the six years between 1759 and 1765 studying architecture and draughtsmanship in Rome. Aged 17, he set off on his grand tour, sailing from Gravesend, Kent, in December 1758. After a short stay in Florence, where he was joined by his brother Nathaniel, who was then studying painting in Rome, he and his brother set off for Rome, arriving in early May 1759. By the early 1760s the brothers were living at 77 Strada Felice. In Rome, Dance knew James Adam (architect), who was staying nearby at Casa Guarini, Robert Mylne (architect) (they remained lifelong friends), Peter Grant (abbé) and Giovanni Battista Piranesi. As a student at the Accademia di San Luca, Dance measured and drew several buildings in Rome, including the three remaining columns of the Temple of Castor and Pollux, the Arch of Constantine and the dome of St. Peter’s Basilica, showing much promise as a draughtsman. Much of his later work was inspired by Piranesi. In late 1759 Dance received his first commission – to design two chimneypieces for Sir Robert Mainwaring. In early 1762 Dance was measuring and drawing the Temple of Vesta, Tivoli and later that year he entered a competition organised by the Accademia di Parma to design A Public Gallery for Statues, Pictures & c. His drawings were dispatched to Parma in April 1763, and a few weeks later it was announced that he had won the Gold Medal, and his designs were exhibited at the Ducal Palace. The projected building was in the latest style of neoclassical architecture. During June 1764 the Dance brothers were in Naples, but later that year they were back in Rome, entertaining the actor David Garrick and his wife. On the 21 December 1764 George Dance and his brother were elected to the Accademia di S. Luca, where he was described as Giorgo Danze, architetto Inglese. On the 16 February 1765 Dance dined with the painter Angelica Kauffman and James Boswell, who was visiting Rome. A few weeks later the brothers left Rome to return to Britain.

Billingsgate Market: This engraving was published as Plate 9 of Microcosm of London (1808)

Billingsgate Market: This engraving was published as Plate 9 of Microcosm of London (1808)

Career

The Royal College of Surgeons of England, 35-43 Lincoln's Inn Fields, London WC2A 3PE

The Royal College of Surgeons of England, 35-43 Lincoln’s Inn Fields, London WC2A 3PE

On his return from the Grand Tour, young George joined his father’s office. His earliest London project was the rebuilding of All Hallows-on-the-Wall church. He was one of five architects asked to submit designs, and his design was chosen on 8 May 1765. Work on the building starting in June 1765, at a cost of £2,941, and the building was consecrated on the 8 September 1767.

In 1768, when he was only 27, George succeeded his father as City of London surveyor and architect on his father’s death. His first major public works were the rebuilding of Newgate Prison in 1770 and building the front of the Guildhall, London. Other London works included the church of St Bartholomew-the-Less (1797).

In Bath, Somerset, he largely designed the Theatre Royal, built by John Palmer in 1804-5.
Coleorton Hall was one of his few buildings in the Gothic style.

The Mayors and City of London Court, near the Guildhall

The Mayors and City of London Court, near the Guildhall

Many of Dance’s buildings have been demolished, including the Royal College of Surgeons, Newgate Prison, St Luke’s Hospital for Lunatics, the Shakespeare Gallery in Pall Mall, the library at Lansdowne House, the Common Council Chamber and Chamberlain’s Court at the Guildhall, Ashburnham Place, and Stratton Park (demolished save for its Tuscan portico) Dance retired from practice in 1815.

The Royal Academy
With his brother Nathaniel, George Dance was a founder member of the Royal Academy, founded on 10 December 1768. In 1795, with William Tyler, Dance was appointed to examine the accounts of the academy following the resignation of Sir William Chambers, and in 1796 they became the Academy’s first auditors, helping put the institution on a sounder financial footing.

In 1798 Dance succeeded Thomas Sandby as professor of architecture at the Royal Academy, but as he failed to deliver a single lecture he was dismissed in 1805 and replaced by his former pupil, Sir John Soane. For a number of years he was the last survivor of the 40 original Academicians.

A Collection of Portraits
Dance’s years after 1798 were devoted to art rather than architecture. His Academy contributions consisted of highly finished pencil profile portraits of his friends in Regency London’s artistic establishment. 72 etchings were engraved after them by William Daniell and A Collection of Portraits were published over ten years from 1804. Many are now held by the National Portrait Gallery.

Personal Life
Dance married Mary Gurnell (born 7 February 1752 in Pitzhanger Manor) on the 24 March 1772 at St. George’s, Bloomsbury. Their first child, Thomas, was born in Autumn 1773 and died in 1813. Two more sons followed: George (1778–1813) and Charles Webb (1785–1844). Mary Dance died at the age of 38 in 1791.

Dance suffered from ill health for the last three or four years of his life. He died on 14 January 1825. He was buried in St Paul’s Cathedral.

Royal Academy of Arts, London Date 19th century

Royal Academy of Arts, London
Date 19th century

List of Works

Works in London
All Hallows-on-the-Wall (1765)
Duroure Monument, in Westminster Abbey cloisters (1766)
Minories, development of crescent, circus e.t.c. (1767 onwards) bombed in the London The Blitz and demolished
Newgate Prison & Sessions House (1769–1777) damaged in the Gordon Riots (1780) and restored (1780–1783) demolished (1902–04)
WhiteCross Street, Lord Mayor of London’s Coach House (1768–71) & Almshouses (1770–71) both demolished
Fleet Market, repairs, new office for Collector (1770–74) demolished
Stratford Place, Oxford Street, development and alterations to donduits (1771-2)
Guildhall, London, repairs (1772), Rooms over Matted Gallery (1773), Old Council Chamber (1774), New Council Chamber (1777), Alterations to Chapel (1774 & 1782), Town Clerk’s House (1781), New Facade (1785-8), Chamberlain’s House (1785-6), New Houses, west side of the yard (1795), Exterior Stuccoed (1805), windows of the Great Hall redesigned (1806) & Court of the King’s Bench, altered (1804-6) all has been demolished apart from the facade
Smithfield Market, new bell & frame (1775) & alterations (1804) rebuilt
All Hallows Staining, foot passage under porch, (1775-6) demolished
Billingsgate Fish Market, alterations (1776), Iron column inserted to support upper floor (1777–78) & New Market house and embankment (1798) rebuilt
Banner Street and Finsbury Square (1777), none of Dance’s buildings are still standing
New wall and Gates for the Honourable Artillery Company’s, Artillery Ground, Bunhill Fields (c.1777)
New Houses, Chiswell Street (1777)
Mr Lowry’s House, Lombard Street (1777) demolished
New House for Keeper of Bunhill Fields (1777) demolished
Newgate Market, alterations (1777) & (1784–85) demolished
Obelisk erected on Putney Common to commemorate invention of Fire insurance marks (1777)
Lady Dacre’s Almshouses, repairs (1778)
Wesley’s Chapel, Finsbury (1778)
Jewin Street, widened (1779)
Blackfriars, London, creation of new streets and platform adjoining bridge (1779–92), none of Dance’s buildings survive
Mansion House, London, new entrance, covering of internal courtyard with a roof, new ceiling and lowered the roof of the Egyptian Hall (1782)
St Luke’s Hospital for Lunatics, Old Street, (1780) demolished
Market in Honey Lane rebuilt (1780–88) demolished
Whitefriar’s Wharf, abutment (1781-2) demolished
Monument to the Great Fire of London, repairs to (1783)
Fleet Bridge, repairs (1783) demolished
Roger’s Almshouses, Hart Street, repairs & alterations (1783)
Borough Compter, rebuilding (1785) demolished
Castle Street, widened (1786)
Beech Street, formed (1786-8)
Jewin Crescent, (1786–88) demolished
Lansdowne House Gallery and other Alterations (1786)
Giltspur Street Compter (1787–91) demolished
Boydell Shakespeare Gallery, (1788) demolished
Moorfields, Watch and Engine House (1790) demolished
Leadenhall Market re-roofed (1790–92) & New warehouses (1813) rebuilt
Improvements to Holborn, (1790 onwards)
St Bartholomew’s Hospital, Surgeon’s Theatre and other buildings (1791-6) demolished
Martin’s Bank, Lombard Street, rebuilt (1793) demolished
St Bartholomew-the-Less, rebuilt (1793)
Formation of Pickett Street, The Strand improvements (1793 onwards)
Legal Quays rebuilt (1793-6)
St Margaret-at-Hill Court House, Southwark new facade (1796) demolished
Tottenham Court Road, estate to the east, North & South Crescents and Alfred Place, (1796 onwards) none of Dance’s buildings survive
Limehouse Canal & warehouses West India Docks (1796 onwards) largely demolished
London Custom House, repairs 1799, demolished
St George in the East, alterations to the Rectory (1802)
Commercial Road, laid out (1803)
33 Hill Street, Mayfair (1803) demolished
Royal College of Surgeons of England, Lincoln’s Inn Fields, rebuilt (1804) later alter by Sir Charles Barry, Dance’s portico survives
143 Piccadilly for his brother Nathaniel Dance-Holland (his brother changed his name) (1807)
Whitecross Street Penitentiary (1808–14) demolished
Lombard Street, widened (1811)
New Court, Swithin’s Lane, alterations to Nathan Mayer Rothschild’s house (1811) demolished
Finsbury Circus (1815–16) none of Dance’s buildings survive

Works outside London
Pitzhanger Manor, Ealing, Dance’s own house (1768) later owned by Sir John Soane, who demolished all Dance’s work bar the south wing
Cranbury Park, Hampshire, extensive remodelling, including the new-classical Ballroom(1776–81)
Monument to Jeremiah Meyer, St. Anne’s Church, Kew (1790)
Coleorton Hall, Leicestershire (1802)
Laxton Hall, Northamptonshire (1894)
Stratton Park, Hampshire, (1803) demolished apart from the Greek Doric portico and replaced by a modern house (1963-5)
Theatre Royal, Bath, (1804) burnt down (1863) main facade to Beafort Square survives
St. Mary’s Church, Micheldever, Hampshire (1806)
East Stratton, Hampshire, cottage in the village (1806)
Ashburnham Place, Sussex, alterations (1812)
Kidbrooke House, Sussex, alterations (1814) demolished

Posted in British history, Georgian Era, Jane Austen, Living in the Regency, real life tales, Regency era, Victorian era | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on George Dance the Younger, Georgian Architect and Founding Member of the Royal Academy of Arts

English Diarist and Amateur Cricketer, Charles Cavendish Greville

Charles_Greville_by_J.E._Mayall_and_Joseph_Brown Charles Cavendish Fulke Greville (2 April 1794 – 17 January 1865) was an English diarist and an amateur cricketer who played first-class cricket from 1819 to 1827. His father Charles Greville was a second cousin of the 1st Earl of Warwick, and his mother was Lady Charlotte Bentinck, daughter of the 3rd Duke of Portland (former leader of the Whig party and Prime Minister).

Early Life
Much of Greville’s childhood was spent at his maternal grandfather’s house at Bulstrode. He was one of the Pages of Honour to George III, and was educated at Eton and Christ Church, Oxford; but he left the university early, having been appointed private secretary to Earl Bathurst before he was twenty. The interest of the Duke of Portland had secured for him the secretaryship of the island of Jamaica, which was a sinecure office, the duties being performed by a deputy, and the reversion of the clerkship of the council.

Cricket Career
Mainly associated with Marylebone Cricket Club (MCC), he made 5 known appearances in first-class matches. He played for the Gentlemen in the Gentlemen v Players series. His brother was Algernon Greville.

Public Career
Greville entered upon the discharge of the duties of a Clerk of the Council in ordinary in 1821, and continued to perform them for nearly forty years. He therefore served under three successive sovereigns (George IV, William IV and Victoria) and although no political or confidential functions are attached to that office, it is one which brings a man into habitual intercourse with the chiefs of all the parties in the state. Well-born, well-bred, handsome and accomplished, Greville led the easy life of a man of fashion, taking an occasional part in the transactions of his day and much consulted in the affairs of private life.

Until 1855 when he sold his stud he was an active member of the turf, and he trained successively with Lord George Bentinck, and with the Duke of Portland. Greville died at Mayfair, London, and the celebrity which now attaches to his name is entirely due to the posthumous publication of a portion of a Journal or Diary which it was his practice to keep during the greater part of his life. These papers were given by him to his friend Henry Reeve a short time before his death, with an injunction that they should be published, as far as was feasible, at not too remote a period after the writer’s death.

Diary
The journals of the reigns of George IV and William IV (extending from 1820 to 1837) were accordingly so published in obedience to his directions about ten years after that event. Few publications have been received with greater interest by the public; five large editions were sold in little more than a year, and the demand in America was as great as in England. These journals were regarded as a faithful record of the impressions made on the mind of a competent observer, at the time, by the events he witnessed and the persons with whom he associated. Greville did not stoop to collect or record private scandal. His object appears to have been to leave behind him some of the materials of history, by which the men and actions of his own time would be judged. He records not so much public events as the private causes which led to them; and perhaps no English memoir-writer has left behind him a more valuable contribution to the history of the 19th century. Greville published anonymously, in 1845, a volume on the Past and Present Policy of England in Ireland, in which he advocated the payment of the Roman Catholic clergy; and he was also the author of several pamphlets on the events of his day.

The memoirs appeared in three sets—one volume for 1817 to 1837 and two for the period from 1837 to 1860, published in 1875, three volumes in 1885 and two in 1887. When the first series appeared in 1875 some passages caused extreme offence. The copies issued were as far as possible recalled and passages suppressed however a copy of this original manuscript remained in the Wallace family possession until it was sold and eventually acquired by a bookseller from New York, Gabriel Wells. Wells and the Doubleday publishing house produced The Greville Diary in two volumes in 1927 however these were criticised for poor editing and containing some inaccurate statements.

In 1874 when it became known that Greville’s diary was going to be printed, the news of this caused an uproar. Queen Victoria wrote that she was “horrified and indignant at this dreadful and really scandalous book. Mr Greville’s indiscretion, indelicacy, ingratitude, betrayal of confidence and shameful disloyalty towards his Sovereign make it very important that the book should be severely censored and discredited.” She also said that “The tone in which he speaks of royalty is unlike anything which one sees in history, even of people hundreds of years ago, and is most reprehensible…Of George IV he speaks in such shocking language, language not fit for any gentleman to use”. The Conservative Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli wrote to Lady Bradford on 26 October 1874:

I have not seen Chas. Greville’s book, but have read a good deal of it. It is a social outrage. And committed by one who was always talking of what he called ‘perfect gentlemen.’ I don’t think he can figure now in that category. I knew him intimately. He was the vainest being—I don’t limit myself to man—that ever existed; and I don’t forget Cicero and Lytton Bulwer; but Greville wd. swallow garbage, and required it. Offended selflove is a key to most of his observations. He lent me a volume of his MS. once to read; more modern than these; I found, when he was not scandalous, he was prolix and prosy—a clumsy, wordy writer. The loan was made à propos of the character of Peel, which I drew in George Bentinck’s Life, and which, I will presume to say, is the only thing written about Peel wh. has any truth or stuff in it. Greville was not displeased with it, and as a reward, and a treat, told me that he wd. confide to me his character of Peel, and he gave me the sacred volume, wh. I bore with me, with trembling awe, from Bruton St. to Gros[veno]r Gate. If ever it appears, you, who have taste for style and expression, will, I am sure, agree with me that, as a portrait painter, Greville is not a literary Vandyke or Reynolds; a more verbose, indefinite, unwieldy affair, without a happy expression, never issued from the pen of a fagged subordinate of the daily press.

His brother, Henry Greville (1801–1872), attaché to the British embassy in Paris from 1834 to 1844, also kept a diary, of which part was published by Viscountess Enfield, Leaves from The Diary of Henry Greville (London, 1883–1884).

Posted in British history, Georgian Era, Living in the Regency, real life tales, Regency era, Victorian era | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on English Diarist and Amateur Cricketer, Charles Cavendish Greville

Thomas Cubitt, Master Builder

ThomascubittThomas Cubitt (1788–1855), born Buxton, Norfolk, was the leading master builder in London in the second quarter of the 19th century, and also carried out several projects in other parts of England.

Background
The son of a Norfolk carpenter, he journeyed to India as ship’s carpenter from which he earned sufficient funds to start his own building firm in 1810 on Gray’s Inn Road, London where he was one of the first builders to have a ‘modern’ system of employing all the trades under his own management.

Statue of Thomas Cubitt by William Fawke, 1995. Denbigh Street, London. The twin to this statue can be found in Dorking, Surrey.

Statue of Thomas Cubitt by William Fawke, 1995. Denbigh Street, London. The twin to this statue can be found in Dorking, Surrey.

Cubitt’s first major building was the London Institution in Finsbury Circus, built in 1815. After this he worked primarily on speculative housing at Camden Town, Islington, and especially at Highbury Park, Stoke Newington (now part of Islington).

His development of areas of Bloomsbury, including Gordon Square and Tavistock Square, began in 1820, for a group of landowners including the Duke of Bedford. Having built much of Tavistock Square in the 1820s, Cubitt later extended Tavistock House for Dickens. He also oversaw the installing of a soundproof study at the top of Carlyle’s house in Chelsea. Both Dickens and Carlyle praised Cubitt’s efforts. In his journal (Carlyle Letters, 25 July 1850), Carlyle described Cubitt as “A hoary modest sensible-looking man.”

He was commissioned in 1824 by Richard Grosvenor, 2nd Marquess of Westminster, to create a great swathe of building in Belgravia centred around Belgrave Square and Pimlico, in what was to become his greatest achievement in London. Notable amongst this development are the north and west sides of Eaton Square, which exemplify Cubitt’s style of building and design. The scale of Cubitt’s work is astounding. In Nineteenth Century Architecture in Britain, Reginald Turnor says of Cubitt, “Pimlico and Clapham, terrace after terrace and square after square, were later ventures in which Cubitt improved upon all the speculative building which had ever done before, or, one supposes, will ever be done again.”

Cubitt was also responsible for the east front of Buckingham Palace. He also built and personally funded nearly a kilometre of the Thames Embankment. He was employed in the large development of Kemp Town in Brighton, and Osborne House on the Isle of Wight, completed in 1851. Cubitt’s public works included the provision of public parks, including being an organiser of the Battersea Park Scheme.

In 1827 he withdrew from the management of the business he had established at Gray’s Inn Road leaving such matters to his brother William Cubitt; the firm of Cubitts still carried out the work of Thomas Cubitt and the change robbed neither of the partners of the credit for their work.

He died in 1855 and was taken from Dorking for burial at West Norwood Cemetery on 27 December 1855. After his death, Queen Victoria said “In his sphere of life, with the immense business he had in hand, he is a real national loss. A better, kindhearted or more simple, unassuming man never breathed.

Another statue of Cubitt can be seen in Dorking, opposite the Dorking Halls, as he was favoured there for his architecture on his Denbies estate. Cubitt had built himself a country house in Surrey. Prince Albert visited him there. On the main road into town is a memorial showing Cubitt’s image standing on a raised platform, hidden by a stack of uncovered bricks and a brick measure in his hand. The plaque reads, “Thomas Cubitt – MasterBuilder. Born 1788 – Died 1855 at ‘Denbies,’ Dorking. ‘A GREAT BUILDER AND A GOOD MAN.'” statue1

In 1883 the business was acquired by Holland & Hannen, a leading competitor, and the combined business became known as Holland & Hannen and Cubitts and subsequently as Holland, Hannen & Cubitts.

Family
Cubitt had two brothers, the contractor and politician William and the architect Lewis who designed many of the houses built by Thomas.

His son by his wife Mary Anne Warner, George, who was created Baron Ashcombe in 1892, was the great-great-grandfather of Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall.

Posted in British history, Georgian Era, Living in the Regency, real life tales, Regency era, Victorian era | Tagged , | Comments Off on Thomas Cubitt, Master Builder

Four Reasons Paperbacks Survive

This article comes from The Millions. To read the complete article, go to http://www.themillions.com/2013/04/the-point-of-the-paperback.html, which includes an interesting outlook on the future of the paperback book, as well as some magnificent book covers.

BOOKS AS OBJECTS
The Point of the Paperback
By NICHOLE BERNIER posted at 6:00 am on April 2, 2013

1.
“Why are they still bothering with paperbacks?” This came from a coffee-shop acquaintance when he heard my book was soon to come out in paperback, nine months after its hardcover release. “Anyone who wants it half price already bought it on ebook, or Amazon.”

Interestingly, his point wasn’t the usual hardcovers-are-dead-long-live-the-hardcover knell. To his mind, what was the use of a second, cheaper paper version anymore, when anyone who wanted it cheaply had already been able to get it in so many different ways?

I would have taken issue with his foregone conclusion about the domination of ebooks over paper, but I didn’t want to spend my babysitting time down that rabbit hole. But he did get me thinking about the role of the paperback relaunch these days, and how publishers go about getting attention for this third version of a novel — fourth, if you count audiobooks.
I did what I usually do when I’m puzzling through something, which is to go back to my journalism-school days and report on it. Judging by the number of writers who asked me to share what I heard, there are a good number of novelists who don’t quite know what to do with their paperbacks, either.

Here’s what I learned, after a month of talking to editors, literary agents, publishers, and other authors: A paperback isn’t just a cheaper version of the book anymore. It’s a makeover. A facelift. And for some, a second shot.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Four Reasons Paperbacks Survive

British Forms of Address

How does one address the members of the nobility or the aristocracy in England. That depends on whether a person is speaking directly to the person, writing to the person informally, and writing to the person in a formal situation.

Royalty
For each entry, one will find the following pattern:

Position
On envelopes
Salutation in letter
Oral address

King
His Majesty The King
Your Majesty
Your Majesty, and thereafter as “Sir/Sire”

Queen
Her Majesty The Queen
Your Majesty
Your Majesty, and thereafter as “Ma’am”

Prince of Wales
His Royal Highness The Prince of Wales
Your Royal Highness
Your Royal Highness, and thereafter as “Sir”

Wife of the Prince of Wales
Her Royal Highness The Princess of Wales (traditionally)
(or) Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Cornwall
(or) Her Royal Highness The Duchess of Rothesay (an exception to tradition since 2005)
Your Royal Highness
Your Royal Highness, and thereafter as “Ma’am”

Princess Royal
HRH The Princess Royal
Your Royal Highness
Your Royal Highness, and thereafter as “Ma’am”

Royal Peer
HRH The Duke of XXX, e.g., HRH The Duke of Cambridge
Your Royal Highness
Your Royal Highness, and thereafter as “Sir”

Royal Peeress
HRH The Duchess of XXX, e.g., HRH The Duchess of Cambridge
Your Royal Highness
Your Royal Highness, and thereafter as “Ma’am”

Sovereign’s Son
(unless a peer) HRH The Prince XXX, e.g. HRH The Prince John
Your Royal Highness
Your Royal Highness, and thereafter as “Sir”

Sovereign’s son’s wife
(unless a peeress) HRH The Princess XXX, e.g. HRH The Princess John
Your Royal Highness
Your Royal Highness, and thereafter as “Ma’am”

Sovereign’s Daughter
(unless a peeress)
HRH The Princess XXX
Your Royal Highness
Your Royal Highness, and thereafter as “Ma’am”

Sons of the Prince of Wales
(unless a peer) HRH Prince XXX of Wales, e.g., HRH Prince Frederick of Wales
Your Royal Highness
Your Royal Highness, and thereafter as “Sir”

Sovereign’s son’s son, Prince of Wales’s eldest son’s sons
(unless a peer) HRH Prince XXX of XXX, e.g. HRH Prince Michael of Kent
Your Royal Highness
Your Royal Highness, and thereafter as “Sir”

Sovereign’s son’s son’s wife
(unless a peeress) HRH Princess XXX of XXX, e.g., HRH Princess Michael of Kent
Your Royal Highness
Your Royal Highness, and thereafter as “Ma’am”

Sovereign’s son’s daughter, Prince of Wales’s eldest son’s daughters
(unless a peeress) HRH Princess XXX of XXX, e.g., HRH Princess Beatrice of York
Your Royal Highness
Your Royal Highness

Sovereign’s son’s son’s son
(unless a peer) (Except son of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales) The Lord XXX Windsor, e.g., The Lord Nicholas Windsor
Dear Lord XXX
Lord XXX

Sovereign’s son’s son’s son’s wife
(unless a peeress) The Lady XXX Windsor, e.g., The Lady Nicholas Windsor
Dear Lady XXX
Lady XXX

Sovereign’s son’s son’s daughter
(unless a peeress) The Lady XXX Windsor, e.g., The Lady Helen Taylor
Dear Lady XXX
Lady XXX

A formal announcement in The London Gazette reads: “The Queen has been pleased by Letters Patent under the Great Seal of the Realm dated 31 December 2012 to declare that all the children of the eldest son of the Prince of Wales should have and enjoy the style, title and attribute of Royal Highness with the titular dignity of Prince or Princess prefixed to their Christian names or with such other titles of honour.” This refers to any children of Duke and Duchess of Cambridge.

Nobility
Peers and Peeresses
Position
On Envelopes
Salutation in Letter
Oral Address

Duke
(His Grace) The Duke of XXX
My Lord Duke or Dear Duke (of XXX)
Your Grace or Duke

Duchess
(Her Grace) The Duchess of XXX
Madam or Dear Duchess (of XXX)
Your Grace or Duchess

Marquess or Marquis
(The Most Honourable) The Marquess of XXX
My Lord Marquess or Dear Lord XXX
My Lord or Your Lordship or Lord XXX

Marchioness
(The Most Honourable) The Marchioness of XXX
Madam or Dear Lady XXX
My Lady or Your Ladyship or Lady XXX

Earl
(The Right Honourable) The Earl of XXX
My Lord or Dear Lord XXX
My Lord or Your Lordship or Lord XXX

Countess
(The Rt Hon) The Countess of XXX
Madam or Dear Lady XXX
My Lady or Your Ladyship or Lady XXX

Viscount
(The Rt Hon) The Viscount XXX
My Lord or Dear Lord XXX
My Lord or Your Lordship or Lord XXX

Viscountess
(The Rt Hon) The Viscountess XXX
Madam or Dear Lady XXX
My Lady or Your Ladyship or Lady XXX

Baron (or) Lord of Parliament
(The Rt Hon) The Lord XXX
My Lord or Dear Lord XXX
My Lord or Your Lordship or Lord XXX

Baroness (in her own right)
(The Rt Hon) The Lady XXX or (The Rt Hon) The Baroness XXX
Madam or Dear Lady XXX or Dear Baroness XXX
My Lady or Your Ladyship or Lady XXX or Baroness XXX

Baroness (in her husband’s right) (or) Lady of Parliament (in her or her husband’s right) (The Rt Hon) The Lady XXX
Madam or Dear Lady XXX
My Lady or Your Ladyship or Lady XXX

Eldest sons, grandsons and great-grandsons of dukes, marquesses and earls
Position
On envelopes
alutation in letter
Oral address
Eldest sons of dukes, marquesses and earls use their father’s most senior subsidiary title as courtesy titles: note the absence of “The” before the title. If applicable, eldest sons of courtesy marquesses or courtesy earls also use a subsidiary title from their (great) grandfather, which is lower ranking than the one used by their father. Eldest daughters do not have courtesy titles; all courtesy peeresses are wives of courtesy peers.

Courtesy Marquess
(The) Marquess of XXX
My Lord or Dear Lord XXX
My Lord or Lord XXX

Courtesy Marquess’s Wife
(The) Marchioness of XXX
Madam or Dear Lady XXX
My Lady or Lady XXX

Courtesy Earl
(The) Earl of XXX
My Lord or Dear Lord XXX
My Lord or Lord XXX

Courtesy Earl’s Wife
(The) Countess of XXX
Madam or Dear Lady XXX
My Lady or Lady XXX

Courtesy Viscount
(The) Viscount XXX
My Lord or Dear Lord XXX
My Lord or Lord XXX

Courtesy Viscount’s Wife
(The) Viscountess XXX
Madam or Dear Lady XXX
My Lady or Lady XXX

Courtesy Baron (or) Courtesy Lord of Parliament
(The) Lord XXX
My Lord or Dear Lord XXX
My Lord or Lord XXX

Courtesy Baron’s wife (or) Wife of Courtesy Lord of Parliament
(The) Lady XXX
Madam or Dear Lady XXX
My Lady or Lady XXX

Heirs-apparent and heirs-presumptive of Scottish peers
Position
On envelopes
Salutation in letter
Oral address

Heirs-apparent and heirs-presumptive of Scottish peers use the titles “Master” and “Mistress”; these are substantive, not courtesy titles. If, however, the individual is the eldest son of a Duke, Marquess or Earl, then he uses the appropriate courtesy title, as noted above.

Scottish peer’s heir-apparent or heir-presumptive
The Master of XXX
Sir or
Dear Master of XXX
Sir or Master

Scottish peer’s heiress-apparent or heiress-presumptive
The Mistress of XXX
Madam or Dear Mistress of XXX
Madam or Mistress

Sons, grandsons and great-grandsons of peers
Position
On envelopes
Salutation in letter
Oral address

Duke’s younger son (or) (Courtesy) Marquess’s younger son
(The) Lord XXX XXX, e.g. (The) Lord James Marshall
My Lord or Dear Lord XXX (XXX), e.g. Dear Lord James (Marshall)
My Lord or Lord XXX, e.g. Lord James

Duke’s younger son’s wife (or) (Courtesy) Marquess’s younger son’s wife
(The) Lady XXX XXX, e.g., (The) Lady James Marshall
Madam or Dear Lady XXX, e.g., Dear Lady James
My Lady or Lady XXX, e.g., Lady James

(Courtesy) Earl’s younger son (or) (Courtesy) Viscount’s son (or) (Courtesy) Baron’s son (or) (Courtesy) Lord of Parliament’s son
The Hon XXX XXX, e.g. The Hon James Marshall
Sir or Dear Mr XXX, e.g. Dear Mr Marshall
Sir or Mr XXX, e.g. Mr Marshall

(Courtesy) Earl’s younger son’s wife (or) (Courtesy) Viscount’s son’s wife (or) (Courtesy) Baron’s son’s wife (or) (Courtesy) Lord of Parliament’s son’s wife
The Hon Mrs XXX XXX, e.g. The Hon Mrs James Marshall
Madam or Dear Mrs XXX, e.g. Dear Mrs Marshall
Madam or Mrs XXX, e.g. Mrs Marshall

Daughters, granddaughters and great-granddaughters of peers
Position
On envelopes
Salutation in letter
Oral address
If a daughter of a peer or courtesy peer marries another peer or courtesy peer, she takes her husband’s rank. If she marries anyone else, she keeps her rank and title, using her husband’s surname instead of her maiden name.

Duke’s daughter (or) (Courtesy) Marquess’s daughter (or) (Courtesy) Earl’s daughter (or) (unmarried or married to a commoner)
(The) Lady XXX XXX (if unmarried), e.g. (The) Lady Sarah Brady (or) (The) Lady XXX XXX (Husband Surname, if Married), e.g. (The) Lady Sarah Williams
Madam or Dear Lady XXX, e.g. Dear Lady Sarah
My Lady or Lady XXX, e.g. Lady Sarah

(Courtesy) Viscount’s daughter (or) (Courtesy) Baron’s daughter (or) (Courtesy) Lord of parliament’s daughter (unmarried)
The Hon XXX XXX, e.g. The Hon Melinda Alexander
Madam or Dear Miss XXX, e.g. Dear Miss Alexander
Madam or Miss XXX, e.g. Miss Alexander

(Courtesy) Viscount’s daughter (or) (Courtesy) Baron’s daughter (or) (Courtesy) Lord of Parliament’s daughter(married to a commoner)
The Hon Mrs Brown (Husband Surname)
Madam or Dear Mrs Brown
Madam or Mrs Brown

Gentry and Minor Nobility
Position
On Envelopes
Salutation in Letter
Oral Address

Baronets
Baronet
Sir XXX XXX, Bt (or Bart), e.g. Sir Samuel Smith
Sir or Dear Sir XXX (XXX), e.g. Dear Sir Samuel (Smith)
Sir or Sir XXX, e.g. Sir Samuel

Baronetess in her own right
Dame XXX XXX, Btss, e.g. Dame Samantha Brown, Btss
Madam or Dear Dame XXX (XXX), e.g. Dear Dame Samantha (Brown)
Madam or Dame XXX, e.g. Dame Samantha

Baronet’s wife
Lady XXX, e.g. Lady Lowery
Madam or Dear Lady XXX, e.g. Dear Lady Lowery
My Lady or Lady XXX, e.g. Lady Lowery

Baronet’s divorced wife
XXX, Lady XXX, e.g. Grace, Lady Lowery
Madam or Dear Lady XXX, e.g. Dear Lady Lowery
My Lady or Lady XXX, e.g. Lady Lowery

Baronet’s Widow
Dowager Lady XXX or Lady XXX if the heir incumbent is unmarried, e.g. Dowager Lady Lowery (or) Lady Lowery
Madam or Dear Lady XXX, e.g. Dear Lady Lowery
My Lady or Lady XXX, e.g. Lady Lowery

Knights
Position
On envelopes
Salutation in letter
Oral address

Knight (of any order)
Sir XXX XXX, e.g. Sir James Lucas
Sir or Dear Sir XXX (XXX), e.g. Dear Sir James (Lucas)
Sir or Sir XXX, e.g. Sir James

Lady (of the Order of the Garter or the Thistle)
Lady XXX XXX, e.g. Lady Mary Smith
Madam or Dear Lady XXX (XXX), e.g Dear Lady Mary (Smith)
My Lady or Lady XXX, e.g. Lady Mary

Dame (of an order other than the Garter or the Thistle)
Dame XXX XXX, e.g. Dame Margaret Lowery
Madam or Dear Dame XXX (XXX), Dear Dame Margaret (Lowery)
Madam or Dame XXX, e.g. Dame Margaret

Knight’s Wife
Lady XXX, e.g. Lady Lowery
Madam or Dear XXX XXX, e.g. Dear Lady Lowery
My Lady or Lady XXX, e.g. Lady Lowery

Posted in British history, Georgian Era, Living in the Regency, real life tales, Regency era, Scotland, Uncategorized, Victorian era | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

The Luddites, Fighting for a Better Life

Luddite The Luddites were 19th-century English textile artisans who protested against the newly-developed, labour-saving machinery from 1811 to 1817. The stocking frames, spinning frames, and power looms introduced during the Industrial Revolution made it possible to replace the artisans with less-skilled, low-wage labourers, leaving them without work.

Although the origin of the name Luddite is uncertain, a popular theory is that the movement was named after Ned Ludd, allegedly a youth who had smashed two stocking frames 30 years earlier, and whose name had become emblematic of machine destroyers. The name evolved into the imaginary General Ludd or King Ludd, a figure who, like Robin Hood, was reputed to live in Sherwood Forest.

Any casual observer of working-class behaviour during the years 1740 to 1800 might easily have come to the conclusion that the majority of the lower orders were disaffected to the point of disloyalty toward the King and his Government. Such a verdict, however, would have been inaccurate, as a careful study of the facts would have proved. There was never any evidence and display of disloyalty, nor any real signs of disaffection toward the Government. Even when the opportunity came in 1745, and again in 1789, for the people to ally themselves with revolutionary movements, they remained aloof. It is no exaggeration to say that the suffering masses of the eighteenth century never tried to alter the Constitution and never openly desired a change in the form of administration. What concerned them most was the adequate meeting of their daily needs. When that became difficult because of high prices and continued exploitation, they quickly lost their patience and vented their anger in noisy demonstrations.

But when commodities remained plentiful and prices fairly stable, then the working classes maintained their tranquillity and disorders became rare. There can be no shadow of doubt about the conclusion that physical distress and anxiety were responsible for the explosions of violence so frequently occurring throughout the greater part of the century.

The movement emerged during the harsh economic climate of the Napoleonic Wars, which saw a rise in difficult working conditions in the new textile factories. The principal objection of the Luddites was the introduction of new wide-framed automated looms that could be operated by cheaper, relatively low-to-unskilled labour, resulting in unemployment among the skilled textile workers. The movement began in Nottingham in 1811 and spread rapidly throughout England over the following two years. Handloom weavers burned mills and pieces of factory machinery. Many wool and cotton mills were destroyed before the British government suppressed the movement.

History
The Luddites, often enjoying local support, met at night on the moors surrounding industrial towns, where they would practice drills and manoeuvres. Their main areas of operation were Nottinghamshire in November 1811, followed by the West Riding of Yorkshire in early 1812 and Lancashire by March 1813. Luddites battled the British Army at Burton’s Mill in Middleton and at Westhoughton Mill, both in Lancashire. Rumours abounded at the time that local magistrates employed agents provocateur to instigate the attacks. Using the pseudonym King Ludd, the Luddites and their supporters anonymously sent death threats to–and even attacked–magistrates and food merchants. Activists smashed Heathcote’s lacemaking machine in Loughborough in 1816. He and other industialists had secret chambers constructed in their buildings which be used as hiding places during an attack. In 1817, an unemployed Nottigham stockinger and probable ex-Luddite named Jeremiah Brandreth led the Pentrich Rising, which was a general uprising unrelated to machinery but could be seen as the last major Luddite act.

Government Response
Later intrepretation of Machine Trashing (1812), showing two men superimposed on an 1844 engraving from the Penny magazine which shows a post 1820s Jacquard loom.

The British Army clashed with the Luddites on several occasions. At one time, there were more British soldiers fighting the Luddites than Napoleon on the Iberian Peninsula. Three Luddites, led by George Mellor, ambushed and assassinated a mill owner named William Horsfall from Ottiwells Mill at Crosland Moor in Marsden, West Yorkshire. Horsfall had remarked that he would, “Ride up to his saddle in Luddite blood.” Mellor fired the fatal shot to Horsfall’s groin, and all three men were arrested.

The British government sought to suppress the Luddite movement with a mass trial at York in January 1813. The government charged over sixty men, including Mellor and his companions, with various crimes in connection with Luddite activities. While some were actual Luddites, many had no connection to the movement. Rather than legitimate judicial reckonings of each defendant’s guilt, these were show trials intended as a deterrent to other Luddites from continuing their activities. Through effective displays of harsh consequences, including many executions and penal transportations, the trials quickly ended the movement.

Parliament subsequently made “machine breaking” (i.e. industrial sabotage) a capital crime with the Frame Breaking Act and the Malicious Damage Act. Lord Byron, becoming one of the few prominent defenders of the Luddites after the treatment of the defendants at the York trials, opposed this legislation.

In Retrospect

Later intrepretation of Machine Trashing (1812), showing two men superimposed on an 1844 engraving from the Penny magazine which shows a post 1820s Jacquard loom.

Later intrepretation of Machine Trashing (1812), showing two men superimposed on an 1844 engraving from the Penny magazine which shows a post 1820s Jacquard loom.

The movement can also be seen as part of a rising tide of English working-class discontent in the early 19th century. An agricultural variant of Luddism, centring on the breaking of threshing machines, occurred during the widespread Swing Riots of 1830 in southern and eastern England. Research by Kevin Binfield places the Luddite movement in its proper historical context: as organised action by stockingers had occurred at various times since 1675, the movements of the early 19th century must be viewed in the context of the hardships suffered by the working class during the Napoleonic Wars rather than an absolute aversion to machinery.

Such figures are not without their value. They should not be taken to portray a comfortable, well-ordered society in which the conditions of labour may be contrasted with the later conditions of exploitation, unemployment and misery; the permanent condition of the times was still that of underemployment.

Employment which arose out of the growth of trade and shipping in ports — the dramatic ‘growth’ industries of these years — were notorious then, as later, for occupations with precarious employment prospects. But, also in ‘domestic’ manufacturers, there was a desire for more available labour than normally employed; this, as an insurance against labour shortages in boom times.

Moreover, the organization of manufacture by merchant-capitalists, still the predominant textile industry form, was inherently unstable. Whilst the financier’s capital was still largely in the form of raw material, it was easy to increase commitment where trade was good; but, it was almost as easy*to cut back when times were bad. Merchant-capitalists lacked the incentive of later factory owners, their capital invested in building and plant, to maintain a steady rate of production, and return on fixed capital. Combined with this seasonal variations in wage rates, effects of violent short-term fluctuations springing from harvests and war, periodic outbreaks of violence become more easily-understood.

Spasmodic rises in food prices provoked keelmen on the Tyne to riot in 1709, tin miners to plunder granaries at Falmouth in 1727. There was a rebellion in Northumberland and Durham in 1740, manhandling of Quaker corn dealers in 1756. More peaceably, skilled artisans in the cloth, building, shipbuilding, printing and cutlery trades organized friendly societies to insure them against unemployment and sickness and sometimes, gild fashion, against the intrusion of ‘foreign’ labour into their trades.

In modern usage, “Luddite” is a term describing those opposed to industrialisation, automation, computerisation or new technologies in general.

Posted in British history, Georgian Era, Living in the Regency, real life tales, Regency era, Victorian era | Tagged , , | Comments Off on The Luddites, Fighting for a Better Life

Ned Ludd, Leader of the Luddites, or Maybe Not…

LudditeNed Ludd or Ned Lud, possibly born Ned Ludlam or Edward Ludlam, is the person from whom the Luddites took their name.

In 1779, Ludd is supposed to have broken two stocking frames in a fit of rage. After this incident, attacks on the frames were jokingly blamed on Ludd. When the “Luddites” emerged in the 1810s, his identity was appropriated to become the folkloric character of Captain Ludd, also known as King Ludd or General Ludd, the Luddites’ alleged leader and founder.

Supposedly, Ludd was a weaver from Anstey, near Leicester. In 1779, either after being whipped for idleness, or after being taunted by local youths, he smashed two knitting frames in what was described as a “fit of passion.” This story is traceable to an article in The Nottingham Review on 20 December 1811, but there is no independent evidence of its truth.

John Blackner’s book History of Nottingham, also published in 1811, provides a variant tale of a lad called “Ludnam” who was told by his father, a framework-knitter, to “square his needles.” Ludnam took a hammer and “beat them into a heap.” News of the incident spread, and whenever frames were sabotaged, people would jokingly say “Ned Ludd did it.” Nothing more is known about the life of Ludd.

By 1812, the organized frame-breakers who became known as the Luddites had begun using the name King Ludd or Captain Ludd for their mythical leader. Letters and proclamations were signed by “Ned Ludd.”

In Popular Culture
Music

The character of Ned Ludd is commemorated in the folk ballad “General Ludd’s Triumph.” Chumbawamba recorded a version of this song on their 2003 release, English Rebel Songs 1381–1984.

Robert Calvert wrote and recorded another song “Ned Ludd,” which appeared on his 1985 album Freq; which includes the lyrics:
They said Ned Ludd was an idiot boy
That all he could do was wreck and destroy, and
He turned to his workmates and said: Death to Machines
They tread on our future and they stamp on our dreams.

Steeleye Span’s 2006 album Bloody Men has a five-part section on the subject of Ned Ludd.
The Heaven Shall Burn song “The Final March” has a direct reference to Captain Ludd.

Alt-country band The Gourds affectionately refer to Ned Ludd as “Uncle Ned” in the song “Luddite Juice” off their 2009 release, Haymaker.

The Scottish folk musician Alasdair Roberts sings of Ned Ludd in his song “Ned Ludd’s Rant (For World Rebarbarised)” on his 2009 album, Spoils.

Theo Simon has written a song entitled “Ned Ludd,” commemorating the machine-breakers of 1811-13 and praising current direct action protest as a continuation of his ethos.

San Diego punk band The Night Marchers included a song called “Ned Lud” on their 2013 release “Allez, Allez.”

Literature
Edmund Cooper’s alternative-history The Cloud Walker is set in a world where the Luddite ethos has given rise to a religious hierarchy, which dominates English society and sets carefully prescribed limits on technology. A hammer – the tool supposedly used by Ned Ludd – is a religious symbol, and Ned Ludd is seen as a divine, messianic figure.

The novel The Monkey Wrench Gang (1975), by Edward Abbey, is dedicated to Ned Ludd.
Anne Finger wrote a collection of short stories titled Call Me Ahab about famous disabled historical and literary figures, which included the story “Our Ned” about Ned Ludd.

Ecodefense: A Field Guide To Monkeywrenching was published by Ned Ludd Books. Much of the content came from the “Dear Ned Ludd” column in the newsletter of the group Earth First!.

Posted in British history, Georgian Era, legends and myths, Living in the Regency, real life tales, Regency era, Uncategorized, Victorian era | Tagged , , | 2 Comments

Nicholas Hawksmoor, a Builder of Georgian Churches

Nicholas Hawksmoor (probably 1661 – 25 March 1736) was a British architect born in Nottinghamshire, probably in East Drayton or Ragnall.

Life
Hawksmoor was born in Nottinghamshire in 1661, into a yeoman farming family, almost certainly in East Drayton or Ragnall, Nottinghamshire. On his death he was to leave property at nearby Ragnall, Dunham and a house and land at Great Drayton. It is not known where he received his schooling, but it was probably in more than basic literacy. George Vertue, whose family had property in Hawksmoor’s part of Nottingham shire, wrote in 1731 that he was taken as a youth to act as clerk by ‘Justice Mellust in Yorkshire, where Mr Gouge senior did some fretwork ceilings afterwards Mr. Haukesmore [sic] came to London, became clerk to Sr. Christopher Wren & thence became an Architect.’

Wren who hearing of his ‘early skill and genius’ for architecture, took him as his clerk at about the age of 18. His early drawings in a sketch-book, containing sketches and notes some dated 1680 and 1683, of buildings in Nottingham, Coventry, Warwick, Bath, Bristol, Oxford and Northampton. His somewhat amateur drawings, now in the Royal Institute of British Architects Drawings Collection, shows that he was still learning the techniques of his new profession at the age of 22. His first official post was as Deputy Surveyor to Wren at the Winchester Palace from 1683 until February 1685. Hawksmoor’s signature appears on a brickmaker’s contract for Winchester Palace in November 1684. Wren was paying him 2 shillings a day in 1685 as assistant in his office in Whitehall.

From about 1684 to about 1700, Hawksmoor worked with Christopher Wren on projects, including Chelsea Hospital, St. Paul’s Cathedral, Hampton Court Palace and Greenwich Hospital. Thanks to Wren’s influence as Surveyor-General, Hawksmoor was named Clerk of the Works at Kensington Palace (1689) and Deputy Surveyor of Works at Greenwich (1705). In 1718, when Wren was superseded by the new, amateur Surveyor, William Benson, Hawksmoor was deprived of his double post to provide places for Benson’s brother. “Poor Hawksmoor,” wrote Vanbrugh in 1721. “What a Barbarous Age have his fine, ingenious Parts fallen into. What wou’d Monsr: Colbert in France have given for such a man?” Only in 1726 after William Benson’s successor Hewett died, Hawksmoor was restored to secretaryship, though not the Clerkship of the works – this post was given to Filtcroft. In 1696, Hawksmoor was appointed surveyor to the Commissioners of Sewers for Westminster, but was dismissed in 1700, “‘having neglected’ to attend the Court several days last past.”

He then worked for a time with Sir John Vanbrugh, helping him build Blenheim Palace for John Churchill, 1st Duke of Marlborough, where he took charge from 1705, after Vanbrugh’s final break with the demanding Duchess of Marlborough, and Castle Howard for Charles Howard, later the 3rd Earl of Carlisle. In July 1721 John Vanbrugh made Hawksmoor his deputy as Comptroller of the Works. There is no doubt that Hawksmoor brought to the brilliant amateur the professional grounding he had received from Wren, but it is also arguable that Wren’s architectural development was from the persuasion of his formal pupil, Hawksmoor.

By 1700, Hawksmoor emerged with a major architectural personality, and in the next 20 years he proved himself to be one of the great masters of the English Baroque. His baroque, but somewhat classical and gothic architectural form was derived from his exploration of Antiquity, the Renaissance, the English Middle Ages and contemporary Italian baroque. Unlike many of his wealthier contemporaries, Hawksmoor never travelled to Italy on a Grand Tour, where he might have been influenced by the style of architecture there. Instead he studied engravings especially monuments of ancient Rome and reconstructions of the Temple of Solomon.

In 1702, Hawksmoor designed the baroque country house of Easton Neston in Northamptonshire for Sir William Fermor. This is the only country house for which he was the sole architect, though he extensively remodelled Ockham House, now mostly destroyed, for the Lord Chief Justice King). Easton Neston was not completed as he intended, the symmetrical flanking wings and entrance colonnade, very much in the style of John Vanbrugh, remaining unexecuted.

As he neared the age of 50, his creativeness was received by two universities, Oxford and Cambridge. In 1713, Hawksmoor was commissioned to complete King’s College, Cambridge: the scheme consisted of a Fellows’ Building along King’s Parade, and opposite the Chapel a monumental range of buildings containing the Great Hall, kitchens and to the south of that the library and Provost’s Lodge. Wooden models and plans of the scheme survive, but it proved too expensive and Hawksmoor produced a second scaled down design. But the college that had invested heavily in the South Sea Company lost their money when the ‘bubble’ burst in 1720. The result was that Hawksmoor’s scheme would never be executed, the college was finished later in the 18th century by James Gibbs and early in the 19th century by William Wilkins. In 1690s, Hawksmoor gave proposals for the library of the Queen’s College, Oxford. However like many of his proposals for both universities, such as All Souls College, The Radcliffe Library, Brasenose College, Magdalen College Oxford, was not executed.

The West Towers, Westminster Abbey

The West Towers, Westminster Abbey

After the death of Wren in 1723, Hawksmoor was appointed Surveyor to Westminster Abbey. This post received 100 pounds voted by Parliament for the repair and completion of the Abbey in 1698. The west towers of the Abbey were designed by Hawksmoor but was not completed until after his death.

Hawksmoor conceived grand rebuilding schemes for central Oxford, most of which were not realised. The idea was for a round library for the Radcliffe Camera but that commission went to James Gibbs. He did design the Clarendon Building at Oxford; the Codrington Library and new buildings at All Souls College, Oxford; parts of Worcester College, Oxford with Sir George Clarke; the High Street screen at The Queen’s College, Oxford and six new churches in London.

Hawksmoor’s six London churches
In 1711, parliament passed an Act for the building of Fifty New Churches in the Cities of London and Westminster or the Suburbs thereof, which established a commission which included Christopher Wren, John Vanburgh, Thomas Archer, and a number of churchmen. It appointed Hawksmoor and William Dickinson as its surveyors. As supervising architects, they were not necessarily expected to design all the churches themselves. Dickinson left his post in 1713 and was replaced by James Gibbs. Gibbs was removed from his post in 1716 and replaced by John James. James and Hawksmoor remained in office until the commission was wound up in 1733. The declining enthusiasm of the Commission, and the expense of the buildings, meant that only twelve churches were completed, six designed by Hawksmoor, and two by James in collaboration with Hawksmoor. The two collaborations were St Luke Old Street (1727–33) and St John Horsleydown (1727–33), to which Hawksmoor’s contribution seems to have been largely confined to the towers with their extraordinary steeples. The six churches wholly designed by Hawksmoor are his best-known independent works of architecture. They compare in their complexity of interpenetrating internal spaces with contemporaneous work in Italy by Francesco Borromini. Their spires, are essentially Gothic outlines executed in innovative and imaginative Classical detail. Although Hawksmoor and John James terminated the commission by 1733, they were still being paid “for carrying on and finishing the works under their care” until James’s death.
St Alfege’s Church, Greenwich
St George’s Church, Bloomsbury
Christ Church, Spitalfields
St George in the East, Wapping
St Mary Woolnoth

Christ Church Spitalfields (1714–29), west front

Christ Church Spitalfields (1714–29), west front

Garden Buildings and Monuments

Hawksmoor also designed a number of structures for the gardens at Castle Howard these are:
The Pyramid (1728)
The Mausoleum (1729–40) built on the same scale as his London churches, it is almost certainly the first free-standing mausoleum built in Western Europe since the fall of the Roman empire.
The Carrmire Gate, (c.1730)
The Temple of Venus (1731-5) demolished
At Blenheim Palace he designed the Woodstock Gate (1723) in the form of a Triumphal arch. He also designed the obelisk in Ripon market place, erected in 1702, at 80 feet in height it was the first large scale obelisk to be erected in Britain.

Death and obituary
Hawksmoor died on 25 March 1736 in his house at Millbank from ‘Gout of the stomach.’ He had suffered poor health for the last twenty years of his life and was often confined to bed hardly able to sign his name. His will instructed that he be buried at the church at Shenley, Hertfordshire. This has been deconsecrated and his tomb stone there is now in a private garden. It has this inscription:
P M S
L
Hic J[acet]
NICHOLAUS HAWKSMOOR Armr
ARCHITECTUS
obijt vicesimo quin[t]o die [Martii]
Anno Domini 1736
Aetatis 75

Hawksmoor’s only child was a daughter, Elizabeth, whose second husband, Nathanial Blackerby, who wrote the obituary of his father-in-law.
His obituary appeared in Read’s Weekly Journal, no. 603. 27 March 1736.
: Thursday morning died, at this house on Mill-Bank, Westminster, in a very advanced age, the learned and ingenious Nicholas Hawksmoor, Esq, one of the greatest Architects this or the preceeding (sic) Century has produc’d. His early skill in, and Genius for this noble science recommended him, when about 18 years of age, to the favour and esteem of his great master and predecessor, Sir Christopher Wren, under whom, during his life, and for himself since his death, he was concerned in the erecting more Publick (sic) Edifices, than any one life, among the moderns at least, can boast of. In King Charles II’s reign, he was employ’d under Sir Christopher Wren, in the stately buildings at Winchester; as he was likewise in all the other publick structures, Palaces &c, erected by that great Man, under whom he was assisting, from the Beginning (factually wrong, Hawksmoor was 14 years old then) to the Finishing of that grand and noble Edifice the cathedral of St. Paul’s, and of all the churches rebuilt after the Fire of London. At the building of Chelsea-College he was Deputy-Surveyor, and Clerk of Works, under Sir Christopher Wren. At Greenwich-Hospital he was, from the Beginning ’till a short time before his death, Clerk of Works. In the Reigns of King William and Queen Anne, he was Clerk of their Majesties Works at Kensington, and at Whitehall, St. Jame’s and Westminster. In the reign of King George I, he was first Surveyor of all the new Churches, and Surveyor of Westminster-Abbey, from the death of Sir Christopher Wren. He was chiefly concern’d in designing and building a great number of magnificent Nobleman’s Houses, and particularly (with Sir John Vanbrugh) those of Blenheim and Castle-Howard, at the latter of which he was at his Death, carrying on a Mausoleum in the most elegant and grand Stile (sic), not to mention many others: But one of the most surprising of his undertakings, was the repairing of Beverley Minster, where the stone wall on the north-side was near three Foot out of the perpendicular, which he mov’d at once to its upright by means of a machine of his own invention. In short his numerous Publick Works at Oxford, perfected in his lifetime, and the design and model of Dr. Ratcliff’s Library there, his design of a new Parliament-House, after the thought of Sir Christopher Wren; and, to mention no more, his noble Design for repairing the West-End of Westminster-Abbey, will all stand monuments to his great capacity, inexhaustible fancy, and solid judgement. He was perfectly skill’d in the History of Architecture, and could give exact account of all the famous buildings, both Antient (sic) and Modern, in every part of the world; to which his excellent memory, that never fail’d him to the very last, greatly contributed. Nor was architecture the only science he was master of. He was bred a scholar. and knew as well the learned as the modern tongues. He was a very skilful mathematician, geographer, and geometrician; and in drawing, which he practised to the last, though greatly afflicted with Chiragra, few excelled him. In his private life he was a tender husband, a loving father, a sincere friend, and a most agreeable companion; nor could the most poignant pains of Gout, which he for many years laboured under, ever ruffle or discompose his evenness of temper. And as his memory must always be dear to his Country, so the loss of so great and valuable man in sensibly, and in a more particular manner felt by those who had the pleasure of his personal acquaintance, and enjoy’d the happiness of his conversation.

Upon his death he left a widow, to whom he bequested all his property in Westminster, Highgate, Shenley, and East Drayton, who later married William Theaker; grandchild of this second marriage ultimately inherited Hawksmoor’s properties near Drayton, after the death of the architect’s widow. Hawksmoor’s only child was a daughter, Elizabeth.

Recovering Hawksmoor’s Reputation
Modern scholarship has sought to distinguish Hawksmoor’s work from that of Christopher Wren and the other designers in the Office of Works such as Robert Hooke. Many buildings were previously attributed without distinguishing their designers by name and Hawksmoor’s reputation as an individual designer has been obscured by this fact. Modern re-apraisal began with a study in 1924 by Harry Stuart Goodhart-Rendel. The major breakthrough in Hawksmoor scholarship came with Kerry Downes’s 1979 monograph the examined the numerous documents of Hawksmooor’s work, a happy result of much of his work being for the Office of the King’s Works, who kept their records.

Hawksmoor’s influence by Old Testament descriptions of the Temple of Solomon and lost wonders of the ancient world is explored in Pierre De La Ruffiniere’s du Prey’s 2000 study of Hawksmoor. In 2002, Hawksmoor was the subject of an award-winning monograph by the architectural historian Vaughan Hart, which appraised Hawksmoor in the light of archival discoveries since the work of Kerry Downes.

St. John's Horsleydown (1727–33), joint work with John James, tower by Hawksmoor, bombed in London Blitz then demolished

St. John’s Horsleydown (1727–33), joint work with John James, tower by Hawksmoor, bombed in London Blitz then demolished

Hawksmoor in Modern Literature
Hawksmoor’s architecture has influenced several poets and authors of the twentieth century. His church St Mary Woolnoth is mentioned in T. S. Eliot’s poem The Waste Land (1922).

Algernon Stitch lived in a “superb creation by Nicholas Hawksmoor” in London in the novel Scoop by Evelyn Waugh (1938).

Hawksmoor is the subject of a poem by Iain Sinclair called ‘Nicholas Hawksmoor: His Churches,’ which appeared in Sinclair’s collection of poems Lud Heat (1975). Sinclair promoted the poetic interpretation of the architect’s singular style of architectural composition that Hawksmoor’s churches formed a pattern consistent with the forms of Theistic Satanism though there is no documentary or historic evidence for this. This idea was, however, embellished by Peter Ackroyd in his novel Hawksmoor (1985) the historical Hawksmoor is refigured as the fictional Devil-worshiper Nicholas Dyer, while the eponymous Hawksmoor is a twentieth-century detective charged with investigating a series of murders perpertrated on Dyer’s (Hawksmoor’s) churches.

Both Sinclair and Ackroyd’s ideas in turn were further developed by Alan Moore and Eddie Campbell in their graphic novel, From Hell, which speculated that Jack the Ripper used Hawksmoor’s buildings as part of ritual magic, with his victims as human sacrifice. In the appendix, Moore revealed that he had met and spoke with Sinclair on numerous occasions while developing the core ideas of the book. The argument includes the idea that the locations of the churches form a pentagram with ritual significance.

A view of All Souls College, looking east from the University Church of St Mary the Virgin

A view of All Souls College, looking east from the University Church of St Mary the Virgin

Posted in British history, Georgian Era, Living in the Regency, real life tales, Regency era, Victorian era | Tagged , , | Comments Off on Nicholas Hawksmoor, a Builder of Georgian Churches

Book Buying Stats and Building an Author Following

This article comes from The Globe and Mail. As a mid-list author with a niche following, this struck home. To read the complete article, go to http://www.theglobeandmail.com/arts/why-book-buying-stats-might-stifle-the-next-great-author/article6755208/

This article is part of Next, The Globe’s five-day series examining the people, places, things and ideas that will shape 2013.

Given the pressure to reduce costs, something had to give in the formerly genteel world of book publishing, and it’s not the publishers. Rationalizing with mergers, capitalizing on global fads and making up in digital sales some of what they have lost in print, the big houses are stubbornly resisting their oft-foretold extinction.

The true dinosaurs of the new age are authors. Once happily enclosed in the “stables” of publishers willing to nurture and develop their talent, even if they never wrote a major bestseller, droves of so-called “mid-list” authors now find themselves roaming among the ever-present throng of wannabes flogging unpublished work in an indifferent market. And that throng is most likely to produce tomorrow’s bestsellers, even if they begin life as obscure, self-published digital texts that, onloy after they find a following, are taken up and heavily marketed to mainstream prominence by major publishing houses.

Many mid-list authors have fallen victim to increasingly sophisticated, widely available sales data, according to agents and publishers. Publishers can now assess every author’s lifelong sales thanks to such services as Nielsen Bookscan in the United States and BookNet Canada.

Posted in Industry News/Publishing | Comments Off on Book Buying Stats and Building an Author Following

John Wilson Croker, Public Steward and Controversial Regency Era Figure

490px-John_Wilson_Croker_by_William_Owen_detail John Wilson Croker (20 December 1780 to 10 August 1857) was an Irish statesman and author.

Life
He was born at Galway, the only son of John Croker, the surveyor-general of customs and excise in Ireland. He was educated at Trinity College, Dublin, where he graduated in 1800. Immediately afterwards, he entered Lincoln’s Inn, and in 1802 he was called to the Irish bar.

His interest in the French Revolution led him to collect a large number of valuable documents on the subject, which are now in the British Museum. In 1804, he published anonymously Familiar Epistles to J. F. Jones, Esquire, on the State of the Irish Stage, a series of caustic criticisms in verse on the management of the Dublin theatres. The book ran through five editions in one year. Equally successful was the Intercepted Letter from Canton (1805), also anonymous, a satire on Dublin society. During this period a rather scathing poem attributed to Croker led to the suicide of actor John Edwin, husband of Elizabeth Rebecca Edwin. In 1807, he published a pamphlet on The State of Ireland, Past and Present, in which he advocated Catholic emancipation.

The following year he entered parliament as member for Downpatrick, obtaining the seat on petition, though he had been unsuccessful at the poll. The acumen displayed in his Irish pamphlet led Spencer Perceval to recommend him in 1808 to Sir Arthur Wellesley, who had just been appointed to the command of the British forces in the Iberian Peninsula, as his deputy in the office of chief secretary for Ireland. This connection led to a friendship which remained unbroken until Wellington’s death.

The notorious case of the Duke of York in connexion with his abuse of military patronage furnished Croker with an opportunity for distinguishing himself. The speech which he delivered on 14 March 1809, in answer to the charges of Colonel Wardle, was regarded as the most able and ingenious defence of the duke that was made in the debate; and Croker was appointed to the office of secretary to the Admiralty, which he held without interruption under various administrations for more than twenty years. He proved an excellent public servant, and made many improvements which have been of permanent value in the organization of his office. Among the first acts of his official career was the exposure of George Villiers, a fellow-official who had misappropriated the public funds to the extent of £200,000.

In 1824 he helped found the Athenaeum Club, and became the subject of the lampoon beginning “I’m John Wilson Croker, I do as I please…”

In 1827, he became the representative of Dublin University, having previously sat successively for the boroughs of Athlone, Yarmouth, Bodmin and Aldeburgh. He was a determined opponent of the Reform Bill, and vowed that he would never sit in a reformed parliament; he left parliament in 1832. Two years earlier he had retired from his post at the admiralty on a pension of £1500 a year. Many of his political speeches were published in pamphlet form, and they show him to have been a vigorous and effective, though somewhat unscrupulous and often virulently personal, party debater. Croker had been an ardent supporter of Robert Peel, but finally broke with him when he began to advocate the repeal of the Corn Laws.

He was for many years one of the leading contributors on literary and historical subjects to the Quarterly Review, with which he had been associated from its foundation. The rancorous spirit in which many of his articles were written did much to embitter party feeling. It also reacted unfavourably on Croker’s reputation as a worker in the department of pure literature by bringing political animosities into literary criticism.

He had no sympathy with the younger school of poets who were in revolt against the artificial methods of the 18th century. In April 1833 he savagely criticised Poems, published the previous December by Alfred Tennyson – an attack which, coupled with the death of his friend Arthur Hallam, discouraged the aspiring poet from seeking to publish anything more for nine years. He was also responsible for the famous Quarterly article on John Keats’s Endymion. Shelley and Byron erroneously blamed this article for bringing about the death of the poet, ‘snuffed out,’ in Byron’s phrase, ‘by an article’ (they, however, attributed the article to William Gifford).

His magnum opus, an edition of Boswell’s Life of Johnson (1831) was the subject of an unfavourable review by Macaulay in the Edinburgh Review (a Whig rival/opponent of the Quarterly Review) The main grounds of criticism were echoed by Thomas Carlyle in a less famous review in Fraser’s Magazine

*** that Croker had added extensive notes, which were to little point, being superfluous or declaring Croker’s inability to grasp Johnson’s point on matters where the reviewers had no difficulty. Macaulay also complained (with numerous examples) of factual errors in the notes; Carlyle of their carping attitude to Johnson’s motives (Carlyle, whose father was a stonemason, and who (like Johnson) had scraped a living as a schoolmaster, before writing encyclopaedia articles for bread-and-butter wages, also took great exception to one note which took for granted that when Johnson spoke of having lived on 4 ½ d a day he was disclosing something of which he should have been ashamed to speak)

*** that Croker had not preserved the integrity of Boswell’s text, but had interpolated text from four other accounts of Johnson (Hawkins, Mrs Thrale, etc.), distinguished only from genuine Boswell by being inside brackets, so that “You begin a sentence under Boswell’s guidance, thinking to be carried happily through it by the same: but no; in the middle, perhaps after your semi-colon, and some consequent ‘for’ – starts up one of these Bracket-ligatures, and stitches you in half a page to twenty or thirty pages of a Hawkins, Tyers, Murphy, Piozzi; so that often one must make the old sad reflection, Where we are, we know; whether we are going no man knoweth.”

Croker made no immediate reply to Macaulay’s attack, but when the first two volumes of Macaulay’s History appeared he took the opportunity of pointing out the inaccuracies in the work. Croker was occupied for several years on an annotated edition of Alexander Pope’s works. It was left unfinished at the time of his death, but it was afterwards completed by the Rev. Whitwell Elwin and Mr WJ Courthope. He died at St Albans Bank, Hampton.

Croker was generally supposed to be the original from which Benjamin Disraeli drew the character of “Rigby” in Coningsby, because he had for many years had the sole management of the estates of the Marquess of Hertford, the “Lord Monmouth” of the story. Hostile portrayals of Croker can also be found in the novels Florence Macarthy by Lady Morgan (a political opponent whom Croker subjected to notoriously savage reviews in the Quarterly) and The Anglo-Irish of the Nineteenth Century (1828) by John Banim.

The chief works of Croker not already mentioned were:
Stories for Children from the History of England (1817), which provided the model for Scott’s Tales of a Grandfather
Letters on the Naval War with America
A Reply to the Letters of Malachi Malagrowther (1826)
Military Events of the French Revolution of 1830 (1831)
a translation of Bassompierre’s Embassy to England (1819)
He also wrote several lyrical pieces of some merit, such as the Songs of Trafalgar (1806) and The Battles of Talavera (1809). He edited the Suffolk Papers (1823), Hervey’s Memoirs of the Court of George II (1817), the Letters of Mary Lepel, Lady Hervey (1821–1822), and Walpole’s Letters to Lord Hertford (1824). His memoirs, diaries and correspondence were edited by Louis J Jennings in 1884 under the title of The Croker Papers (3 vols.).

Posted in British history, Georgian Era, Living in the Regency, real life tales, Regency era | Tagged , , | Comments Off on John Wilson Croker, Public Steward and Controversial Regency Era Figure