Review: She-Wolves: England's Early Queens (DVD series)

Women throughout history who have expressed any inkling of ambition have traditionally been disparaged by the world's predominantly paternalistic societies as either harlots or traitors to their own sex.  Britain's women who would rule were no different and branded as she-wolves by the men who sought to claim sovereignty even without the prerequisite royal blood line.  It is the lives of these women of Britain that are explored in Acorn Media's series "She-Wolves: England's Early Queens" based on a book of the same name by medieval scholar Dr. Helen Castor.  Castor produced the series for the BBC and serves as its host throughout the program.

In opening remarks, Castor points out that men rose to power by demonstrating their superiority in military leadership and prowess as warriors.  But women in the royal line of succession were often ignored or married off to males deemed unfit because of fragile health or mental instability so other powerful men could assert their rights to the royal succession.  To press their own claim or the claim of their offspring to the throne, queens were often forced to forge alliances with men who could just as easily thrust them aside once a battle was won.



Episode 1 examines the struggles of Matilda, daughter of Henry I, and Eleanor of Aquitaine, first a queen of France then wife of Henry II of England.  I was somewhat familiar with at least a basic outline of the events that transpired in the lives of these two women.

The war between Matilda and her usurping cousin Stephen of Blois has been the backdrop for a number of theatrical productions including the excellent miniseries "Pillars of the Earth" based on Ken Follett's book by the same name.  In fact the death of Matilda's brother aboard the infamous White Ship is the ultimate secret harbored by the evil villain of the story, Bishop Waleran Bigod, played superbly by Ian McShane.

Likewise, Eleanor of Aquitaine has been the subject of countless books and theatrical productions including the award-winning "Lion In Winter" with Eleanor played by none other than the legendary Katherine Hepburn.  Eleanor has been portrayed so heroically for centuries that I was surprised Castor approached her biography more matter-of-factly.

Based on the life sketched by Castor, I got the impression Eleanor may have been more personally ambitious than the ultimate romantic she is often portrayed to be.  Perhaps describing her as passionately ambitious would be a good combination instead.  When you examine her possible tryst with her warrior uncle in Antioch while on Crusade and married to King Louis VII of France,  then her aggressive pursuit of Henry II after she successfully obtains a dissolution of marriage, she hardly comes across as an icon of courtly love.
Then you learn she essentially betrays Henry when her sons (including Richard the Lionheart and the infamous King John of Robin Hood legend), tired of waiting for him to die so they can rule, revolt against their father.  How could I characterize her but to recognize that she appears to be someone who desired power above love (she virtually ruled England while her son Richard The Lionheart was away on Crusade) and was supremely opportunistic - much more deserving of the term she-wolf than I initially thought.



I found Episode 2 about Isabella of France and Margaret of Anjou even more fascinating.

As Castor detailed the unfortunate marriage of Isabella of France and Edward II, I couldn't help but picture the beautiful image of Sophie Marceau who played the role of Isabella in Mel Gibson's production of "Braveheart".  Of course this theatrical version of the Queen was rife with "creative license" since historians say Isabella and Edward II married three years after Braveheart was captured and executed. Isabella was also only 12 at the time of their marriage so she couldn't possibly have been a secret lover of William Wallace.  But it was the face of Marceau that I continued to envision as I listened to the trials of her difficult marriage.  Her husband, who preferred male companionship, gave his attentions, first, to Piers Gaveston, the first Earl of Cornwall, then Hugh Despenser the Younger.  In spite of this, Isabella somehow managed to produce four children (although there were rumors of queenly affairs).  Isabella's eldest, Edward III, ultimately became King of England.

The barons of England were as appalled by Edward's behavior as Isabella and were in constant plots to end his rule.  These efforts increased in earnest when Edward advanced his favorite Hugh Despenser the Younger.

Increasingly Edward had to rely on Isabella's French relatives to keep him in power.  But Edward's lover Despenser the Younger used his influence to confiscate Isabella's lands in England and even her household staff.  Then, when tensions rose between France and England and Isabella was sent to France to negotiate a settlement, she finally found love with Roger Mortimer, the first Earl of March, who had been exiled to France.  Together they raised and army, invaded England and deposed Edward II.  But, in a cruel twist of fate, Isabella's son did not like Mortimer and resented his influence so the prince ordered Mortimer's execution.  Edward III did not execute his mother but, like many noble women who displeased the men in power, Isabella ended her days in a nunnery.

I thought the biography of Isabella would be the most poignant but the story of Margaret of Anjou was even more heart rending.  Margaret was married to the son of the famous warrior king Henry V when she was only 15.  But unlike his warrior father, Henry VI was not only bookish and lacking a forceful personality, he suffered from severe and incapacitating mental illness -  hardly the warrior king needed for the ensuing War of the Roses.  So Margaret had to seek help from other powerful nobles to try to retain the throne for Henry so her son could ultimately inherit it.

Castor did not elaborate much about Henry VI's mental condition but I was intrigued so I researched it further.  Here are some of the speculations about the cause that I found:

"In 1453, at the age of 32, Henry VI began to exhibit signs of serious mental illness. By means of a "sudden fright" he entered into a trance-like state reacting to and recognising no one. Catatonic schizophrenia or depressive stupor have been suggested as a likely diagnosis. This was probably an inheritance from his grandfather, Charles VI of France, who himself suffered from bouts of schizophrenia, which is reported to have come on suddenly in 1392 when he was then aged 24, into which he then suffered relapses for the next 30 years. Charles VI's mother, Joanna de Bourbon, also exhibited signs of mental illness, as did various ancestors of hers, including Louis I, Duke of Bourbon, Peter I, Duke of Bourbon, Louis II, Duke of Bourbon." - English Monarchs

A physician from Albert Einstein College of Medicine agrees with the diagnosis of schizophrenia:

"At 31 he [Henry VI] had a sudden, dramatic mental illness in which he was mute and unresponsive. Before, he had been paranoid, grandiose, and indecisive. After, he was apathetic with deterioration of ability, drive, interest and self-care, and hallucinations and religious delusions. This illness, which is consistent with a diagnosis of schizophrenia, robbed Henry of his personality, his crown, his wife, his only son, and his life. It led to three decades of brutal fighting for the crown (the 'Wars of the Roses') that resulted in a new dynasty with a dramatic impact on the country: the Tudors, Henry VIII, and Elizabeth I and their descendants. - N. Bark, Did schizophrenia change the course of English history? The mental illness of Henry VI, abstract

During this period, though, Margaret gave birth to a son she named Edward.

"When the baby was shown to Henry, he remained immobile like a statue, looking upon the Prince only once, immediately casting down his eyes again; he took no notice and said no word. He didn’t even recognise his wife. The Royal physicians tried a series of drugs, purgatives, baths and bleedings, but their patient remained impassive. He wouldn’t wash or dress of his own account. Potions, syrups, laxatives, clysters and bloodletting followed. Henry’s head was shaved and purged “to rid the brain of its black bile and so restore the balance of the humours”. Still, Henry remained passive, and found difficulty in moving about without assistance." - J.N.W. Bos, Mad Monarchs: Henry VI of England,

When Henry began to fully recover in January 1454, he declared his son must have been conceived by the Holy Ghost, which did little to quell the rumors of his queen's unfaithfulness.  Things went from bad to worse when the king's regent, Richard Plantagenet, 3rd Duke of York, began organizing allies that would support his own, rather than the king's, right to the throne.  With the King essentially incompetent to defend himself, Margaret resorted to intrigue to put an end to this threat, conspiring to assassinate the duke on two different occassions.  Castor did not get into this much detail however.

Failing to put an end to her husband's rival, Margaret found herself at the head of the Lancastrian faction in her husband's stead at the First fateful Battle of St. Alban's where the Yorkists succeeded in routing the King's forces and imprisoned Henry VI.

Margaret's forces retaliated at the Battle of Wakefield and a Second Battle of St. Alban's where her husband was freed.  But other Lancastrian defeats followed and Margaret fled to France where she sought help from her cousin Louis XI.  Louis suggested an alliance with the Earl of Warwick and the Earl offered his daughter's hand in marriage to Margaret's son to seal the bargain.  But, upon returning to England, Warwick, although initially successful, fell at the Battle of Barnet leaving Margaret alone to lead the Lancastrian army at the Battle of Tewkesbury.  There, her forces were not only defeated but her beloved 17-year-old son was killed.

Her husband, Henry VI, upon hearing of his son's death died soon after.  Although the official story was Henry died of grief many suspected foul play.  To end all doubt, King George V had Henry's body exhumed in 1910.  A patch of light brown hair matted with blood was found still attached to his skull, confirming a violent end to his life.

Broken and defeated, Margaret was imprisoned until ransomed by Louis XI four years later.  She spent her remaining seven years as a poor relation to the King of France.  When I researched her biography, I noticed that this courageous "she-wolf"  suffered a final indignity during the French Revolution when rebels ransacked her tomb in Angers Cathedral and scattered her remains.




The last episode of "She-Wolves" focuses on the accesion of Lady Jane Grey, Mary Tudor (Mary I) and Elizabeth I following the death of Henry VIII.  I have watched quite a few films on the Tudors as well as studied the life of Henry VIII so I was familiar with most of the information Castor provided here.  However, I was under the assumption that Henry VIII's only son, Edward VI, was a sickly child eventually succumbing to a respiratory ailment at the tender age of  15 so had contributed little during his reign.  Castor pointed out that Edward was quite directly responsible for numerous Protestant reforms and personally developed a "devise of succession" that skipped over his half-sisters, the very Catholic Mary as well as Elizabeth, and granted ruling authority to his cousin, a very reticent 16-year-old Lady Jane Grey.  I had assumed all of this manipulation was the result of the influence of the King's regent, the  Duke of Northumberland.  But I guess that line of thinking was abandoned back in the 1970s.

Mixed media portrait sculpture of Edward VI
by George Stuart.  Image courtesy of the
Historical Figures Foundation.

"For centuries, the attempt to alter the succession was mostly seen as a one-man-plot by the Duke of Northumberland. Since the 1970s, however, many historians have attributed the inception of the "devise" and the insistence on its implementation to the king's initiative Diarmaid MacCulloch has made out Edward's "teenage dreams of founding an evangelical realm of Christ", while David Starkey has stated that "Edward had a couple of co-operators, but the driving will was his". Among other members of the Privy Chamber, Northumberland's intimate Sir John Gates has been suspected of suggesting to Edward to change his devise so that Lady Jane Grey herself—not just any sons of hers—could inherit the Crown. Whatever the degree of his contribution, Edward was convinced that his word was law and fully endorsed disinheriting his half-sisters: "barring Mary from the succession was a cause in which the young King believed." - Edward VI, Wikipedia with citations 161-167

"She-Wolves" brought much needed attention to the role women have played in the history of Britain, even before the much glamorized rule of "Gloriana" (Elizabeth I).  Dr. Castor is to be applauded for the development of this series and its straightforward presentation that makes these women come alive for a 21st century audience.

Related articles

• Isabella of France aka The She-Wolf
• The Kingmakers
• Joan of Acre: Daring Countess

Review: The Ultimate Guide to the Presidents (History Channel documentary)

When I was asked to review this new DVD series from the History Channel I thought it would be a collection of biographies of the men that have held the office of President of the United States since George Washington assumed the office on April 30, 1789.  Although, it began with George Washington and worked its way through each successive office holder, it quickly became clear to me that the focus of this new 2013 production was directed toward each man's presidential politics and how the policies of each administration ultimately shaped the role of government in its citizens lives and in the world community of nations.

Perhaps the best way to illustrate the difference in this new production is to compare it to an earlier award-winning series produced in 2005 for the History Channel entitled simply "The Presidents" since they appear to cover the same material.

George Washington sculpted in wax at
Madame Tussaud's in London.  Photo by
Mary Harrsch.

Of course both series start with George Washington.  The 2005 documentary begins by telling us interesting little facts about George Washington, the man.  We learn he loved to dance the minuet and collect American landscape paintings.  He enjoyed interior decoration, personally decorating the interiors of his home at Mount Vernon.  He also dabbled in fashion design and designed various military uniforms.  Thomas Jefferson said he was the best horseman he had ever known and Washington's white horse was named Nelson.

We learn Washington was considered a good judge of character and not someone who simply wanted "yes men" advisors.  He selected the first cabinet and it was composed of really talented and experienced men including Thomas Jefferson who served as Secretary of State and Alexander Hamilton who became the first Secretary of the Treasury.  Washington met with them regularly and seriously considered their advice when making decisions.  Then, one of the professional historians interviewed for this segment very tactfully mentioned that Washington was "accustomed to command."  We also learn that Washington did not like to shake hands but one of the historians again tactfully explained that Washington simply felt it was beneath the dignity of the office of President.

An equestrian statue of George Washington
by Rudolf Siemering Bronze 1897 CE
atop the Washington Monument in Eakins
Oval outside the Philadelphia Museum of Art.
Photo by Mary Harrsch.

The older program went on to tell us that Washington personally selected the site for the new capital and even personally surveyed the site.  Then we learn about Washington's declaration of neutrality when Great Britain went to war with France and, when a large number of citizens violently objected to a whiskey tax enacted by Congress, Washington led a force of 12,000 volunteers to put down the rebellion.  Lastly, much is made of Washington's willingness to lay down the responsibilities of president and peacefully return to Mount Vernon like an American Cinncinattus.

Interesting what a difference eight years makes in historical perceptions!  The new series first spends quite a bit of time explaining the context of the office of president at that time.  Congress considers itself the most important governing body and also imparts substantial strength to the judicial branch.  But the position of chief executive is viewed as someone who essentially will rubber stamp whatever legislation is ultimately sanctioned by the Congress.  Members of Congress did not initially consider giving the president veto power or control of government in any way, wishing to avoid the problems of hereditary monarchies or military-controlled empires.

As the first person to hold the office, Washington set a number precedents, including the appointment of a cabinet.  As mentioned in the first series, it is pointed out that he dislikes shaking hands but this time the historian is more frank about Washington's attitude that he felt the custom was beneath him.

The differences between the two documentaries becomes especially obvious in the discussion of Washington's second term.  When Great Britain and France declare war and Washington decides to sign a neutrality agreement, people are outraged.  Some people call Washington a traitor and Washington is burned in effigy.  Furthermore, Congress questions Washington's right to sign such an agreement since the president cannot declare war.  That is the perogative of Congress.  Washington becomes very angry because he is not only "accustomed to command" as it was so delicately stated in the first documentary, but he is not used to criticism or having his viewpoint challenged.

George Washington leading 12,000 volunteers to suppress the Whiskey Rebellion.  Image courtesy of Wikipedia.

As the second term wore on, the 2013 program points out Washington became tired of the job and longed to retire to Mount Vernon.  He often appeared bored at state dinners.

His selection of the site of the new nation's capital was not without challenge either.  Several of the colonies, now states, had incurred large debts during the revolution and wanted the central government to now assume them.  Other colonies that had paid their own debts were opposed.  Washington felt strongly that if the central government was to exercise authority over all of the states, it should assume the war debts.   But to overcome the opposition he developed a compromise.  One of the largest debtors was New York, the location of the capital at that time.  The majority of colonies that did not have large war debts was in the south.  So Washington proposed that in exchange for assuming the war debts of the mostly northern colonies, the new government capital would be relocated south to its present location on the Potomac River.  I thought this was an interesting example of early political compromise.

So, I came away from my comparison wishing the History Channel had integrated these documentaries to truly produce an "Ultimate Guide to The Presidents".  The 2013 documentary also included more live action reenactments and tack sharp visuals as well as a more dramatic score.  At least I can recommend both productions as complementary to each other and not duplicative in scope or focus.

Impressionism - Technology sparks an evolution in art

Acorn Media sent me a fascinating series they recently released on DVD entitled "Understanding Art: Impressionism."  Not only did I find the details of the groundbreaking artists' lives covered in the series  interesting, but, being a technologist, I was surprised that this revolutionary change in art was partially brought about by several technological advances in artists' equipment.

Impressionism is foremost an effort to capture the real world in natural light (en plein air).  But before the invention of a portable easel, artists had been pretty much shackled to an indoor studio because of the bulky nature of their painting platform.  According to the series, this changed dramatically with the development of a compact, collapsible easel and  the mid-18th century introduction of premixed paints in lead tubes (resembling modern toothpaste tubes), which allowed artists to work more spontaneously, both outdoors and indoors. Previously, painters made their own paints individually, by grinding and mixing dry pigment powders with linseed oil, which were then stored in animal bladders.

[J. M. W.] Turner was one of the first artists in Britain to use synthetic colours as they gradually became available, with chromium yellow becoming his favourite. 

The transition from archaic alchemy to modern chemistry during the nineteenth century would mean that new metallic elements, such as Chromium, could be treated with different acids and combined with various other metals to provide a much wider range of colours for artists. 

Chromium yellow, chromium orange and chromium red, as well as a completely new range of chromium greens became available. 

These pigments made in a laboratory setting were found to have all the properties, including durability and permanence, of their natural counterparts. - Carolyn McDowall, Turner from the Tate - A Major Art Show for Australia 2013

 Although Turner painted before the full-blown Impressionist movement began in earnest, the video points out that he inspired later Impressionists like Monet.  Turner is of particular interest to my own family because we think Joseph Mallord William Turner may possibly be one of our ancestors. Our grandfather, Joseph William Turner, was born near Maidstone, England where J.M.W. Turner lived.  When my sister Jane and I were in England, we were told J.M.W. Turner was a notorious womanizer as well as a great painter and we can't help but wonder at the close similarity in names.  My grandfather (or his father) could have been named after J.M.W. Turner because of the painter's celebrity, but it does make you wonder due to the proximity to their family homes.  Since J.M.W. Turner lived from 1775 - 1851, he couldn't have been my grandfather's father but he could have been his grandfather.  Anyway, we enjoy viewing his art and like to think he may have been part of our extended family. Jane and I toured the Turner gallery at the Tate when we were in London in 2006 and later I saw more of Turner's work on exhibit at the Kimbell Art Museum in Fort Worth, Texas.

But, back to the Impressionist revolution.  Another technological improvement introduced in the mid-1800s was  the development of the ferrule, the metal portion of the brush covering the attachment of the bristles to the wooden shaft.  Prior to the development of the ferrule, bristles were attached to the brush by thread bindings that held the bristles in a circular clump.  Although the ends of the bristles could be clipped to alter the shape, the application of paint was still circumscribed by the overall circular shape of the brush.  With the invention of the ferrule, the shape of the entire array of bristles could be flattened to varying degrees by flattening the metal of the ferrule.  This enabled artists to apply paint in short, thick strokes (termed "impasto") that became typical of many Impressionists' works.

This closeup of "Woman in a Garden" by Berthe Morisot,
(1882/1883) illustrates the thicker application of paint
employed by Impressionists.  Photographed at the Art
Institute of Chicago by Mary Harrsch.

As I watched the series, I was also surprised by another pragmatic detail adopted by the Impressionists.  The narrator pointed out that Impressionists typically wore dark smocks so the reflected color of their clothing would not pollute the colors reflected by the natural light they were attempting to capture.  I had to smile at this as that is exactly the reason I wear dark, non-reflective clothing when I photograph artwork in a natural light setting.  I learned this the hard way by wearing bright red on one of my first photoshoots and discovering after I got back to my office that all of my images had a rosy glow that I then had to spend hours in Photoshop to remove.  If I had studied the Impressionists first, I might have saved myself a lot of work!

Other interesting details I learned from the video series included the fact that syphilis was rampant in 19th century France.  Upon researching this point on Wikipedia, I learned that syphilis is thought by some scholars to have been carried back to Europe by crewmen returning from Christopher Columbus' voyages to the New World since it was not diagnosed in Europe until 1494.  The Columbian theory is rejected by those who think syphilis was simply not recognized until then but had existed previously in the Old World for many years.   I had thought it had been around since the world's oldest profession but apparently not.  I had heard for many years about Small pox and measles brought by European colonists to the New World being a tragic consequence to the Native American peoples here.  But maybe they inadvertently got a little payback afterall. Unfortunately, though, syphilis took its toll on some of the most gifted of the Impressionists, including Edouard Manet.

"Artists throughout history have led lives worthy of tabloid headlines. What makes the artistic temperament so susceptible to notorious and off-the-wall conduct? "Artists in general are unusual people," says Kevin Stayton, chief curator of the Brooklyn Museum. "Great artists push boundaries, have new ways of seeing and thinking, and do things no one has done before. This energy is not going to be confined to their work. It spills over to how they live." But the legend of an artist never outshines the art itself. Says Stanton, "Tons of people throughout history have tried to be artists, and lived outrageous lives. But if the art doesn't make them immortal, their behavior certainly won't." - Artists Behaving Badly by Courtney Jordan, Smithsonian Magazine

However, this was not necessarily the case with Edouard Manet.  The video explained that some scholars think that Manet married his father's mistress, Suzanne Leenhoff, out of duty and actually contracted syphilis from his own father through her.  Although Edouard treated Leenhoff's son as his own, some think Leon could have actually been his half brother.  I thought it was ironic that his stodgy traditionalist father who was a highly respected judge in "polite" society may have led more of a secret lifestyle like that ascribed to artists while his artist son was far more conservative.

A self-portrait by Frédéric Bazille.
Photographed at the Art Institute of Chicago
by Mary Harrsch.

I was also saddened to learn that one of the artists was killed at the tender age of only 28 in the Franco-Prussian War.  On November 28, 1870, Frédéric Bazille was with his unit at the Battle of Beaune-la-Rolande when, his officer having been injured, he took command and led an assault on the German position. He was hit twice in the failed attack and died on the battlefield.  Bazille was not only a gifted artist in his own right but used his wealth to support the other less fortunate Impressionists, providing them with a studio and often materials as well.

I have been fortunate in my travels to view a number of Impressionists exhibits.  The first was an exhibit at the Walters Art Museum in Baltimore in 2004. The Musee d'Orsay in Paris is one of the world's largest facilities that permanently houses many Impressionist works.  I was fortunate enough to visit the museum in 2008 when I was in Paris and recommend it as a "must see" for anyone traveling to France.

The Art Institute of Chicago has some really exceptional Impressionists works in their collection too, including several from one of my favorite Impressionists, Pierre-Auguste Renoir.  I spent two enjoyable days exploring their galleries in 2009.

Young Woman Sewing by Pierre-Auguste Renoir, 1879
Photographed at the Art Institute of Chicago by
Mary Harrsch.

Then this year the Portland Art Museum hosted an exhibit of both historical and modern impressionism.  One of Monet's famous lily ponds of Giverny, part of their permanent collection, shared the limelight with works by Renoir, Manet, Gaugin, Degas, Van Gogh and Impressionist pioneer Camille Pissaro.

Closeup Detail of "Waterlillies" (1914-1915) by Claude Monet.
Photographed at the Portland Art Museum by Mary Harrsch.

"Young Girls Reading" (1891) by Pierre-Auguste
Renoir.  Photographed at the Portland Art Museum
by Mary Harrsch.

Born on the island of St. Thomas in the Danish West Indies,
Jewish artist Camille Pissarro preferred to paint quiet country
scenes rather than the raucous social life of Paris. "The Red House"
 (1873) Photographed at the Portland Art Museum by Mary Harrsch.

Watching Acorn Media's "Understanding Art: Impressionism" really made these artists come alive for me and the lush imagery and humorous recreations of famous paintings with live models allowed me to savor their work like a fine glass of wine.  I think you'll find it just as captivating.

Related articles

• Fashion and the Impressionist Painters
• Edouard Manet
• Musee d'Orsay: Impressionist central

Review: Garrow's Law Series 3 (2012 DVD)

Like the actor Andrew Buchan, who played William Garrow, I had never heard of this ground-breaking English barrister until Acorn Media asked me to review Series 3 of the "Garrow's Law" DVD that was just released by them.

Buchan and his fellow cast members, Alun Armstrong who plays Garrow's mentor, Thomas Southouse, and Lyndsey Marshal, who plays Garrow's love interest, Sarah Dore Hill, did such a marvelous job of bringing these vibrant people to life that I added the first two Series to my Netflix queue since I had never viewed them either and dove into my research to learn more about this period of history in which the legal system we share with the English evolved so radically from prosecutions lasting an average of only 8 minutes that were little better than courtroom brawls.

Andrew Buchan (center) as 18th century barrister
William Garrow

In an interview with the BBC, Buchan pointed out that most of Garrow's early cases were conducted in a mob-like atmosphere.

"The juries were loud and bawdy and would throw insults at witnesses as they passed. When Garrow comes into that arena he provokes one of two reactions – either absolute shock at what he is saying, as no-one has previously been questioned in that manner, or a real reaction to the fact he said a lot of unthinkable things." - Andrew Buchan, BBC Interview 

In fact, as I watched the DVD, I was surprised by the aggresiveness of the opposing lawyers and the lack of interference by the judge.  Apparently, the formal procedure of objecting and abstaining was not yet implemented then.  However, I found in my research, this raucous environment was accurately captured by the screenplay.

"A contemporary, Thomas Hague, described him [William Garrow] as pert, vulgar and garrulous, saying that the 'brutal insolence' and 'wanton scurrility' he employed in cross-examining witnesses 'wounded private feelings, insulted the dignity of the court and violated public decorum; more important, it tended to upset the ends of justice.' Such sentiments are, no doubt, exaggerated since Hague was bitterly hostile to Garrow and prone to hyperbole.  Nonetheless, Garrow could, on occasion, be too aggressive and too insensitive." - John Hostettler and Richard Braby, Sir William Garrow: his Life, Times and Fight for Justice.

I also found the cases tried in these four episodes provided interesting insight into the social fabric of life in 18th century England.

King George III (in coronation robes) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The first case involved James Hadfield who feigned an attempt on the life of King George III  so Hadfield could be shot to death by his majesty's guards.  Hadfield, who believed that the second coming of Jesus Christ could be accelerated if he himself were killed by the British Government, fired a pistol in the direction of the King's royal box at the Theatre Royal, Drury Lane.  When Hadfield wasn't shot by the King's guards but captured and held for trial, he was assigned to Garrow who presented a defense based on a new interpretation of legal insanity.




Historically, this case was actually defended by Thomas Erskine, a contemporary of William Garrow.  At the time of the prosecution, British law defined legal insanity as  "lost to all sense … incapable of forming a judgement upon the consequences of the act which he is about to do".  But Hadfield's preparation for the assassination attempt seemed to discount this defense.  However, Erskine presented two surgeons and a physician that all testified Hadfield's delusions were the result of saber-inflicted head injuries he suffered at the Battle of Tourcoing in 1794 and asked the jury to redefine legal insanity as  suffering from delusions "unaccompanied by frenzy or raving madness [as] the true character of insanity".  This new definition, of course, was politically sensitive at the time as the case was tried during the reign of so-called "Mad" King George III.  The film appropriately touched on this briefly.

In this episode, I was also surprised when Garrow visited an institution for the insane and actually found the facility headed apparently by a physician knowledgeable about psychological imbalances.  I expected such a facility during this time to be little more than a cesspit.   However, during this period, the infamous Bethlem Mental Hospital, that had gained notoriety for the brutal treatment of its inmates, had been moved to new buildings and medical minds of the day had even discerned that some cases were treatable.  With this new medical interpretation, curable and incurable wards opened in 1725-1734.  However, people still went to Bedlam to view the "freaks" for a penny with records indicating 96,000 such visits in 1814, well after Hadfield was permanently incarcerated at Bethlem after being found criminally not guilty - technically a legal victory but with a very bad outcome for the defendant in the long run.

In episode 2, Garrow is charged with defending two Spitalfields silk weavers who took part in a violent demonstration against wealthy silk manufacturers where silk looms were destroyed.  Of course this case is based on activities that occurred during the Spitalfields Riots in 1769 but supposedly took place years after that.  In fact, during Garrow's passionate cross examination of a master weaver, Garrow accuses him of being paid for testimony in the original prosecution of the two men who were actually tried and executed for activities during the Spitalfields Riots.    Garrow quotes one of the real earlier defendant's recorded final statement of innocence delivered from the scaffold.

" I John Doyle do hereby declare, as my last dying words in the presence of my Almighty God, that I am as innocent of the fact I am now to die for as the child unborn. Let my blood lie to that wicked man who has purchased it with gold, and them notorious wretches who swore it falsely away." John Doyle before execution for activities during The Spitalfields Riots by David Wilkie, The LawMentor.

This shed quite a bit of light onto strategies used by the wealthy to perpetrate prosecutions for their own political and financial gain and clearly showed the Draconian nature of English law at the time as property destruction was considered a capital offense.

This case also revealed the impact of industrialization as early as the Georgian Age when most of us think of the industrial revolution associated with the Victorian era.  One of the silk weavers points out that since the introduction of machines his salary had dropped from 2 guineas (42 shillings) to only 3 shillings a week.

There was also an over supply of weavers as Irish weavers fled to England when the Irish linen industry declined.  History tells us the situation was further exacerbated by a depression in the silk market caused by the importation of French silk and printed calicos during this period.

Garrow, in an effort to save his remaining defandant after one of the defendants turned King's evidence, sought to sway the jury by appealing to their sense of justice rather than return a verdict based on the dictates of the prevailing law.

In a fit of brilliance and either self-confidence or foolhardiness, Garrow embarked upon a last ditch, do or die attempt to sway the jury by pulling at their heart strings to persuade them to return a 'perverse' verdict (yes it is surprising what we can learn from dramatisations), by finding the defendant not guilty against all the evidence. It worked, and the foreman of the jury, despite what some might have seen as an attempt by Judge Buller to bully the jury by allowing them hardly any time to deliberate and by saying there was nothing to consider - meaning that the defendant was guilty, uttered the words 'not guilty'.  -  David Wilkie, The LawMentor.

In addition to insight into the Spitalfields Riots and the silk trade, I found this case particularly interesting because I had very much enjoyed another miniseries about the cloth weaving industry in England, "North and South" starring one of my favorite British actors, Richard Armitage, although it was about the operation of cotton mills in the Victorian era rather than silk mills in the Georgian era.

In Episode 3, we get a chance to see Garrow prosecute the notorious first British governor of Trinidad, Thomas Picton, who, with a viewpoint of "let them hate so long as they fear", sanctioned torture and murder to eliminate those he viewed as a threat to his provincial government.  This case was actually prosecuted by the real William Garrow in February, 1806.

Lt. General Sir Thomas Picton

Garrow is aided in his efforts by William Fullarton who was appointed to a commission sent to Trinidad to govern after it was decided to retain it as a British possession.

"A fellow colonial administrator, Colonel William Fullarton, initiated the proceedings against Picton. In summer 1802, the administration of Henry Addington had removed Picton as governor of Trinidad and replaced him with a three-man commission headed by Fullarton, with Picton retained as second commissioner and Commodore Samuel Hood appointed as third commissioner. Fullarton and Picton soon clashed bitterly over matters of colonial administration, policy, and personal style. Picton was a strong proponent of developing Trinidad's plantation economy; his own speculations in land and slaves amounted to a small fortune.31 In this he was out of step with British government plans for Trinidad. Lord Hobart, secretary for war and the colonies, who was connected to Fullarton through former service in India, turned to the colonel as an agent of reform. Fullarton's concept of imperial responsibility had been forged at an earlier moment of imperial crisis; he had served as a military commander during the Second Mysore War, as an opponent of Warren Hastings and a friend of Edmund Burke.  Whereas Picton was a Welshman who had begun his military career at age thirteen, Fullarton was a product of the Scottish Enlightenment. Following his studies at Edinburgh University, he served as secretary to the British embassy in Paris; at age twenty-six, he entered Parliament; and as a fellow of the Royal Societies of London and Edinburgh, he authored works on agricultural improvement in Scotland and military reform in India.  The conflict between Picton and Fullarton, and among their supporters, produced a minor pamphlet war, along with a series of libel cases. Although Privy Council's hearings were held in camera, Fullarton ensured that documents presented at Whitehall found their way into print.  The chaos of the Caribbean, and rivalries born there, spread to the imperial core." - James Epstein, Politics of Colonial Sensation: The Trial of Thomas Picton and the Cause of Louisa Calderon, The American Historical Review 

Before the trial, both Picton's supporters and Fullarton's adherents waged a pamphlet war trying to influence potential jurors and officers of the court.  Fullarton's supporters even sold engravings of a personable 14-year-old mulatto girl being trussed up and tortured in a state of semi-undress that were enthusiastically purchased by the British public.  Fullarton was literally breathing down Garrow's neck to convict Picton but the King's court justice, Lord Ellenborough and other aristocrats in the room had large investments in the West Indies that could be jeopardized by a guilty verdict even though the torture charge was deemed only a misdemeanor.  (Punishments during this period seemed wildly disconnected to the seriousness of the crime.  People were being executed for stealing a hankerchief while those accused of atrocities while serving in the government are only charged with misdemeanors.)

"Three background points need to be made. First, the West Indies were of crucial financial and military importance to Britain and France.16 The scale of economic commitment was staggering.17 The West Indies dominated British long-distance trade; an eighth of all British seamen were involved in this trade.18 It followed that the Caribbean was an endemic and deadly zone of war and plunder.19 Second, not only were the West Indies the biggest depository of British and French investment overseas, they were also the most vulnerable. A small number of whites—the Privy Council in 1789 reported 50,000 in all the British islands—lived alongside more than 10,000 free men and women of color and nearly a half-million slaves.20 This vulnerability was exacerbated by war and revolution; the French Revolution's universalist message of liberté combined with indigenous forces of resistance among slaves, free people of color, and creole Europeans as rebellion swept the Caribbean.21 Third, Trinidad was something of a special case. The island's plantation economy and the large-scale importation of African slaves were very recent, connected predominantly with newly arrived sugar planters who moved from neighboring French islands following the cédula of 1783, which reversed Spain's policy of exclusion and opened the island to foreign settlement. Previously a Spanish backwater, Trinidad overnight became an open frontier. Between 1784 and 1797, the slave population rose from just under 2,500 to just over 10,000. There was also a relatively large population of free persons of color (4,476), who outnumbered whites." -  James Epstein, Politics of Colonial Sensation: The Trial of Thomas Picton and the Cause of Louisa Calderon 

The prosecution centered around a young mulatto woman named Louisa Calderon.  In the film, she is portrayed as an alluring adult.  In reality, Louisa was only 14 at the time she was tortured.  By the time the case came to trial, Calderon was 16.

Louisa, now aged around sixteen, was the star witness. In a typical newspaper report, the Sun found that "Her appearance was extremely interesting, and her countenance, which was that of a Mulatto, extremely pre-possessing and agreeable." Other reports added that she was "dressed in white, with a turban tied on in the costume of the country.  -  James Epstein, Politics of Colonial Sensation: The Trial of Thomas Picton and the Cause of Louisa Calderon 

The type of torture she endured was called "piqueting".  It was a type of military torture where the accused is suspended then forced to stand on a wooden spike. The historical Calderon endured one session of 53-54 minutes and another session of 24 minutes.

The "piquet" torture of Louisa Calderon

"Asked to give an account of her torture, 'she accompanied her explanation by placing herself in the attitude she so described,' demonstrating how she was bound by the wrist to the pulley ('the left-hand, raising her'), with her right hand tied to her left ankle and her right foot lowered onto the spike. Garrow next showed her 'a drawing in water colours ... representing in striking manner her situation with the executioner and his attendants during the application of the torture.' She confirmed that it was an accurate representation... Suffering from excruciating pain in her side and wrist and from a badly swollen foot, she was placed in irons (the 'grillos') in a crouching position between sessions."  -  James Epstein, Politics of Colonial Sensation: The Trial of Thomas Picton and the Cause of Louisa Calderon 

The TV producers must have decided this type of torture was not graphic enough so they showed her suspended and forced to stand on the tip of a spear point.

Garrow cites a shocking list of other atrocities recorded as commonplace on Trinidad under Picton's administration.

"Among other crimes that remained under investigation, Picton was accused of having burned alive, decapitated, and brutally executed slaves suspected of practicing the black arts, necromancy, and casting spells, results of the so-called "poisoning" commission appointed by Picton around the same time that Calderon was arrested. Most serious, at least for the privy councillors, was the charge that he had hanged without court-martial a young artillery soldier, Hugh Gallagher, accused of having raped and robbed a free woman of color."  -  James Epstein, Politics of Colonial Sensation: The Trial of Thomas Picton and the Cause of Louisa Calderon 

But the real legal point was whether the colony, which was still the subject of peace negotiations at the time (later included in the provisions of the Peace of Amiens), was operating under Spanish law which Picton maintained permitted torture or under British law which did not.

"At issue was the Spanish law as it was to be administered in Trinidad; a British court was required to interpret Spanish legal practice. Dallas described the island as a site of social chaos, explaining that it had become a receptacle for every description of undesirable and dangerous refugee from other islands. Picton was 'no civilian'; a rough man of war, he had been entrusted with maintaining order amid colonial chaos. As for the form of torture itself, Dallas sought to counter the image of inhumane practice, and Garrow's 'theatrical exhibition' of this practice. The mode of punishment inflicted on Calderon was exactly as described in 'any Dictionary of Arts and Sciences' under the term 'piquet.' Dallas noted, 'in this land of liberty which is proverbial for the humanity of its laws, the punishment of the piquet prevails; upon whom is it inflicted? upon those brave men who shed their best blood, and risk their lives in the service and for the defence of their country.' Moreover, Spain was notorious for its repertory of torture; set beside forms of Spanish cruelty, the piquet was a 'slight' punishment. The challenge was to settle the precise terms of Spanish law pertaining to judicial torture in the West Indies. It proved difficult to shake the prosecution's evidence that until Picton's arrival, no judicial torture had been practiced in Trinidad. A key witness for the defense was Archibald Gloster, Trinidad's attorney general. He was reduced to a figure of ridicule as it became clear, under Garrow's cross-examination, that he knew little about Spanish law; he even conceded his inability to read Spanish without the aid of a dictionary. The coup de grace was administered by Pedro de Vargas, who was called in rebuttal. A lawyer born in South America who had lived throughout the Spanish West Indies, he testified that he knew of no law that sanctioned torture." - James Epstein, Politics of Colonial Sensation: The Trial of Thomas Picton and the Cause of Louisa Calderon 

In his fiery summation, Garrow thundered  "he was an Englishman and governor of a British settlement" who should have asked himself what law, English or Spanish, "could justify him in making this unhappy creature his victim." It remained for the jury to do their duty as Britons to "protect those, who by the prowess of the British arms have become your fellow-subjects; and you will show the poorest individual in the territories of England has the opportunity of bringing his oppressor, however high his rank, to answer for his misconduct before a court of justice."

A jury, now sympathetic to the victim, returned a verdict of guilty but Picton's defense attorney immediately filed an appeal.  The case bounced back and forth in the courts until as late as 1812 but Picton was never sentenced.  Instead he was assigned to the military staff of the Duke of Wellington and was subsequently killed in action at the Battle of Waterloo.

"Picton is generally remembered not as a colonial governor but for his role in the Peninsular Campaign and as the highest-ranking officer killed at the Battle of Waterloo; his portrait hangs in the National Portrait Gallery, and his heroic death is commemorated by a statue erected in St. Paul's Cathedral." - James Epstein, Politics of Colonial Sensation: The Trial of Thomas Picton and the Cause of Louisa Calderon 

Picton's victim, Louisa Calderon, died in Trinidad, peniless, despite her brief fame in London.

The last of Garrow's cases on the Series 3 DVD involved defending a supporter of opposition leader Charles James Fox who was falsely accused of murder at a polling day riot. Approached by the victim's daughter, Garrow agrees to find and prosecute the real murderer putting himself in grave danger from the man's colleagues and a corrupt chief magistrate of the constabulary.

The actual case was tried on the 1st of June 1784.  There were four defendants and Garrow served with Thomas Erskine as well as a Mr. Fielding and Mr. Pigott as counsel for the defense.

This episode alludes to a relationship between famous radical Whig party leader Charles James Fox and William Garrow. Although they surely knew each other, the series timeline is a bit out of step with the historical timeline as this episode follows the prosecution of Picton that occurred in 1806 and by then Fox was a corpulent old man suffering from "hardening of the liver" (probably cirrhosis) after a life of excessive drinking and gambling.  Instead, Fox, portrayed by 32 year-old Blake Ritson, appears in his prime.  

Charles James Fox by Karl Anton Hickel

As leader of the Whigs, Fox was a  staunch opponent of George III, whom he regarded as an aspiring tyrant.  Fox also supported the American Patriots, even purposefully dressing in the navy blue and buff colours of George Washington's army.  He was an ardent anti-slavery campaigner, a supporter of the French Revolution, and a leading parliamentary advocate of religious tolerance and individual liberty.  This would have appealed to Garrow.  Garrow thought slavery was so repugnant that he once told a group of West Indies plantation owners who sought to commission him to handle their business affairs, " "if your committee would give me their whole incomes, and all their estates, I would not be seen as the advocate of practices which I abhor, and a system which I detest".

Garrow would go on to become a Whig member of parliament as his legal career evolved, but not until 1805, just a year before Fox's death.

This episode reveals the rough and tumble nature of British politics in the 18th century.  Voters were regularly intimidated and bribery and corruption were rampant.  In the film we see grim-faced constables wielding cudgels facing off against Fox supporters who have gathered outside the official polling place.  Although the film doesn't show the Fox supporters wielding any weapons, historically, there was a group of them deemed butchers  wielding meat cleavers and marrow bones.  However, according to the trial transcript, none of the "meat cleavers and marrow bones" were present when the victim was struck.  Instead the defense presented witnesses that recounted repeatedly that constables armed with "staves" were the only armed men at the scene of the murder.

Upon reading the trial transcript in the online archive of Old Bailey cases, I found the way the defense attorneys discredited the prosecution's witnesses to be rather humorous especially the testimony of one Josephus Roffey:

[Defense] Do you know Joseph [one of the key witnesses for the prosecution]? - [Roffey] Yes.

[Defense] What are you? - [Roffey] I am a shoe-maker by trade, and a patrol; I know him exceedingly well.

[Defense] What sort of a man is he as to his character? - [Roffey] He has an exceeding bad character.

[Defense] Would you believe him on his oath? - [Roffey] Not for a farthing.

[The chief prosecutor] Mr. Morgan : I can let you into a secret, he has just as good an opinion of you. -

[Roffey] That may be so, but I have a better opinion of myself than he has of himself.

All of these cases are presented over a background story of Garrow's love affair with Sarah Dore who had previously borne a son, William Arthur Dore Hill, to Arthur Hill, Viscount Fairford in 1778.  In retaliation, Sir Arthur Hill withheld the child from her when she left Hill and moved in with Garrow, claiming his legal right of paternity.  I must admit I was surprised by this as a law existing as late as the 18th century.  It must have been a carryover from Roman law, on which much of English law is based.  In ancient Rome, when a man and wife divorced, the custody of any children was always the right of the male as pater familias (the official head of household) of the family.  But I didn't realize the law still lingered so late in history.

I also discovered Garrow could have been charged by Hill for damages to his wife, who would have been considered Hill's property under 18th century law.  Such a high profile case actually happened during this time.  Sir Richard Worsley sought to recover £20,000 in damages (Equivalent to about $50 million today) from his wife's lover, Captain George Bisset.

"Captain Bisset defended the charges brought against him by claiming that Lady Worsley was simply not worth £20,000. In fact, he said, she was worth nothing! He alleged that Sir Richard had actively promoted Lady Worsley’s liaisons – not only with Captain Bisset but also with more than twenty other men during the couple’s six years of marriage." - Julian Hawkhead, Scandal and Divorce in the 18th Century 

It was not until the  Matrimonial Causes Act of 1857 were women finally recognized as individuals with rights separate from those of their husbands.

Garrow changes hats from barrister to politician to bring about a successful resolution to the problem.

Many years ago when I was just finishing high school I took a battery of tests to help determine my aptitude for different career paths.  I scored the highest, 99 of 100, in business administration.  I scored the next highest, 98 of 100, for my aptitude to become an attorney. Perhaps if I had read inspiring stories about William Garrow and his 18th century fight for justice, I may have made a different career choice!

Note: The DVD set is now available directly from Acorn Media or from the usual internet sources like Amazon.  Acorn Media specializes in historical dramas and documentaries. They also offer an online streaming service as well "with a special focus on the best of British television and mind, body, spirit programming."  They presently charge only $29.95 for a full year of streamed, commercial free programming with over 100 hours of programming available at any given time.  Membership also includes free standard shipping on any DVDs ordered from their extensive library and specials offers throughout the year.

Related articles

• How Classy Is Your TV Taste?
• My Day on a Plate: Lyndsey Marshal, actress