Wednesday, August 27, 2008

Royal Mistresses: Catherine Sedley, Countess of Dorchester

'Good God, who would have thought that we three whores should have met here!'

The Countess of Dorchester , mistress of James Ii on encountering the Duchess of Portsmouth ,mistress of Charles II, and the Countess of Orkney, mistress of William III, at the coronation of George I, October 20, 1714


Poor James II, he gets no love, not from his people, his daughters, or from biographers. And the same for his mistresses as well, apart from Anne Hyde, the daughter of the Earl of Clarendon, who he married in 1660 after being forced into it by his brother Charles II, who took the view that James 'must drink as he has brewed.' Over the 11 years of their most unhappy marriage, she bore him 8 children, only two of whom lived, the future Mary II, and Queen Anne.

But James had many mistresses, in fact he was as big of a rake as his brother Charles II. He was taller, handsomer, if somewhat dimmer than his brother. While Charles was swarthy, favoring his Bourbon ancestors, James was fair. Perhaps we don't hear as much about his mistresses, because for the most part, they didn't dazzle the court the way that Charles II's did. Not for James II, a Nell Gwyn, or a Barbara Castlemaine. No James liked them young and plain for the most part, most of his mistresses were in their teens, at least at the start of the relationship. His taste in woman was catholic, if they were willing, then he was able. His brother Charles II once remarked on both the quality and quantity of his brother's conquests, encouraging the joke that James was given his mistresses by his priests as a penance! Although some of James's mistresses were known for being beautiful, such as the Countess of Chesterfield, and Susan, Lady Belasyse, it was the uglier ones that seemed to last the longest.


His first major mistress was Arabella Churchill, the daughter of Sir Winston Churchill and sister of John Churchill, the future Duke of Marlborough. Arabella was seventeen when she was appointed a maid of honor to the first Duchess of York, and their relationship continued even through his remarriage to Mary of Modena. Unlike the Duchess, who after her years of trying to bear a boy had gotten fat, Arabella was tall, pale-faced and nothing but skin and bones. 'That ugly skeleton Churchill' was how she was described. However, the Duke had seen her fall off a horse, and was enchanted to find that she had a great set of gams. 'He could hardly believe the limbs of such exquisate beauty should belong to Miss Churchill's face.'
Their affair lasted twelve years, until she got too old (she was almost thirty when the affair ended), and the Duke needed to find greener pastures. She gave him four children, two boys and two girls. Her son James FitzJames, 1st Duke of Berwick, became the ancestor of the Spanish Dukes of Alba. Her daughter Henrietta FitzJames married the Earl of Waldegrave (the late Princess of Wales was one of her descendents).

His next mistress was Catherine Sedley (1657-1717) who was described by no less than Samuel Pepys as 'none of the most virtuous but a witt.' Catherine was said to have inherited her ready wit and her easy virtue from her father Sir Charles Sedley. Sir Charles was rich, a rake, and dabbled in playwrighting. None of his plays are produced today compared to his contemporaries such as Dryden and Etherage. In 1663, Sir Charles was heavily fined for an indiscretion. Samuel Pepys writes about the incident in his diary entry for July 1, 1663.



"Mr. Batten telling us of a late triall of Sir Charles Sydly the other day, before my Lord Chief Justice Foster and the whole bench, for his debauchery a little while since at Oxford Kate’s,1 coming in open day into the Balcone and showed his nakedness, … . and abusing of scripture and as it were from thence preaching a mountebank sermon from the pulpit, saying that there he had to sell such a powder as should make all the [women] in town run after him, 1000 people standing underneath to see and hear him, and that being done he took a glass of wine … . and then drank it off, and then took another and drank the King’s health. It seems my Lord and the rest of the judges did all of them round give him a most high reproof; my Lord Chief justice saying, that it was for him, and such wicked wretches as he was, that God’s anger and judgments hung over us, calling him sirrah many times. It’s said they have bound him to his good behaviour (there being no law against him for it) in 5000l."

Catherine's mother, also named Catherine, was the daughter of Earl Rivers. When Catherine was a child, her mother went mad, imagining that she was the Queen of England, and having to be addressed as 'Her Majesty.' She was confined to a Catholic convent abroad (Lady Catherine was Catholic while her husband and daughter were not) while her husband continued his carousing with his friends, 'the Merry Gang' in between his duties in Parliament. Although Catherine was his only legitimate heir, her father took a common-law wife named Ann Ayscough by whom he had a son. Although she was an heiress with the prospect of 10,000 pounds (6,000 from her mother, with an additional 4,000 upon her father's death), with this marital history behind her, it was no wonder that Catherine chose the life of a royal mistress as opposed to marriage.

Catherine was fifteen when she joined the court as a Maid of Honor to the Duke of York's second wife Mary of Modena (who was also 15 when she married James). She was just as surprised as anyone when James chose her to be his mistress in 1678 when she was 21. According to contemporary sources, she was tall, extremely thin, plain (as she got older she became almost emaciated) and had a squint. The standard of beauty of that time was plump, with rosy cheeks and golden curls. Charles II used to refer to Louise Keroualle, Duchess of Portmouth affectionately as 'fubs'. "We are none of us handsome," Catherine remarked,"And if we have wit, he has not enough to discover it." She was said to have endeavoured to make up for her lack of beauty by the extravagance of her gowns.


Her wit, which she came by naturally from her father, was shocking in its indelicacy as it was diverting. The first Earl of Dartmouth wrote that 'Her wit was rather surprising rather than pleasing, for there was no restraint in what she said of or to anybody: most of her remarkable sayings were what nobody else would in modesty or discretion have said" (Memoirs of the Court of England During the Reign of the Stuarts, page 506). In other words, she just said outloud what other people might have been thinking but who knew enough to censor themselves. She seems to have been as spirited as she was witty. By the time she was 20, Dorinda as she was nick-named in a satiric verse by a rejected suitor Lord Dorset, was a celebrated if not popular member of court. Like Nell Gwyn, she seems to have been able to make her royal lover laugh, particularly when she joked about the black-robed priests in evidence at court. James was always torn between his baser instincts and his immortal soul. Whatever the reason, James fell passionately in love with her.


When she was 25, she was courted by a distant relative, John Churchill. It would have been a good match for Churchill, despite her lack of looks, Catherine was rich as she was her father's only legitimate heir. Her parents urged the match, but by this time Churchill had already met and fallen in love with Sarah Jennings, they were even secretly engaged. When Sarah heard about the match, she wrote Churchill that upbraided him for his inconstancy and ended their engagement. She went off to France with her sister. Although he knew his parents were right to push the match with Catherine, Churchill couldn't bring himself to do it, and the negotiations ended.

In 1685, Charles II died, leaving his hapless brother King of England. James, his conscience no doubt pricked by a myriad of Catholic priests, decided to break off the connection with Catherine now that he was King. He sent her the royal equivalent of a 'Dear John' letter, in essence saying that she should go abroad or depart for the country for he would provide for her but 'he would see her no more.' Catherine refused to go but she left the palace and went to live in a house that had been taken for her in St. James Square at a cost of ten thousand pounds, which she decorated lavishly. Catherine was also given a lovely parting gift of four thousand pounds a year (!). However, on the day of the coronation, James Darnley, their infant son died and both parents were understandably distraught. He was given a royal burial in Westminster Abbey as befitting the son of a King albeit one born on the wrong side of the blanket. Drawn together by their grief, the King was soon sneaking out to see her.

Unlike Catherine of Braganza who bore her husband's infidelities stoically, Mary of Modena was appalled at her husband having mistresses, particularly one who was her Maid of Honor and not even pretty (shades of Diana and Camilla). Catherine had produced her first child, a daughter, while Mary of Modena was still not with child. So she raised a holy stink when James then created Catherine, Baroness of Darlington and Countess of Dorchester for life on the 2nd of January 1686 shortly after his accession to throne. There was also a rumor that James was planning to give her the apartments once reserved for his brother's mistress, the Duchess of Portsmouth. The Queen was so pissed that it was observed that she refused to speak to her husband when they twice dined in state.

The Queen wept and wailed over the great injustice that was being done to her, and she was joined by a chorus of Catholic confessors who also went to work on the King, who was in fear of his mortal soul from all the sinning he'd been doing since puberty. Finally, in front of witnesses, Mary told her husband that he must either give up Catherine or she would leave the court and the marriage and join a convent. This amused Lady Dorchester who had for some time been waging a war of wit with the black-robed fathers. She was open about her contempt for them and ridiculed their piety.

Catherine however was determined to be received by the Queen in her new rank as a Countess. She was already dressed and ready to go when she received a message that she would not be admitted. The King indicated that it was time for Catherine to go, and this time he didn't grant her the final interview that he had once promised her in the event of their parting. Catherine once again stood her ground. Soon after she apparently miscarried or faked one. When she recovered, it was decided that Catherine would go to Ireland where the King had given her some lands. This made her exile a little bit more palatable or as she put it 'the less invidious as well as the more obscure part of the world,' but by March she was already causing trouble for English officials in Dublin. They feared welcoming her too courteously lest they piss the Queen off. It wasn't long before rumors hit London of her possible return, fueled by the refurbishment of her house in St. James Square. The idea thoroughly discomfitted the Queen, which caused Catherine to wonder why she spent so much time worrying about her supposed charms. "She thinks much better of me than I deserve."

In November of 1686, Catherine was back at court taking her place with her usual aplomb. She bought Ham House in Weybridge from the widow of the Duke of Norfolk but her influence over James had waned. After James II was deposed and sped off to France with his tail between his legs so to speak, Catherine continued to write to him for support for her and her daughter, which led many to consider her to be a Jacobite sympathizer. There were also rumors that she was a spy for the other side but those proved unfounded as well. The truth was Catherine found herself between a rock and hard place.

Catherine's father Sir Charles Sedley decidedly was not, he had supported the Glorious Revolution. "I have now returned the obligation I owed to King James; he made my daughter a countess - I have helped to make his daughter a Queen." When Mary and William ascended the throne, Catherine was received rather coldly at court. Every day she watched as women like Hortense Mancini and Barbara, Duchess of Cleveland were admitted warmly to the royal presence. Full of wounded pride, Catherine told Lady Nottingham that 'the jury might possibly acquit me that would whip for being whores every one of the ladies afore mentioned.'

When Queen Mary finally admitted her, the former royal mistress exclaimed "Why so haughty Madam? I beg your majesty to remember that if I broke one of the commandments with your father, you broke another against him. On that score we are both equal." William III looked on her more kindly giving her a pension of fifteen hundred pounds a year (or maybe he was just afraid of what she might say if he didn't). Afterward, she said that 'both Kings were civil to her, but the queens had used her badly.'



Catherine also fought for the rights to the lands given to her in the Fens by the Duke of York in 1683, after they were given by William III to the Earl of Torrington. She took the case to the High Court of Chancery and won, but Torrington put the kibosh on that by bringing a Bill to the House of Commons to confirm the grant. Catherine, not to be outdone or outfoxed, went to the House of Commons in her turn to press her case. Although she lost, the House added a clause to the bill granting her four thousand pounds in back rent and an annuity of six hundred pounds a year. Unfortunately the bill was passed in the negative and she never received her rents.

In August of 1696, Catherine, at the age of thirty-eight, married a one-eyed Scot named Sir David Colyear, afterwards the first Earl of Portmore. He was an officer in William III's army and highly respected. By her husband, Lady Dorchester gave birth to two sons, and by all accounts the marriage was a happy one. When her sons were sent off to school, she told them, "If anybody call either of you a son a whore, you must bear it; for you are so: but if they call you bastards, fight till you die; for you are an honest man's sons."

Lady Dorchester died at Bath on October 26, 1717 at the age of 60 of unknown causes. While her former lover, James II came to regret his prolifigacy in his old age. "I abhor and detest myself for having lived for so many years in a perpetual course of sin," apparently she had no such regrets. She leaves behind a legacy of priceless bon mots. At the coronation of George I, when the Archbishop of Canterbury formally asked the congregation for the people's consent to the King's crowning, the Countess was heard to say loud and clear, "Does the old fool think that anybody will say no to his question when there are so many drawn swords?" (Charles and Camilla, Brandreth page. 21).

Catherine gave birth to several children while James II's mistress, but only a daughter survived. The daughter Catherine, although acknowledged by James, in all probability was the daughter of Colonel James Grahame, a witty and fashionable hanger-on at court and the King's Keeper of the Privy Purse. Apparently Catherine felt no need to confine her favors to just the one man. When her daughter began to give herself airs, Catherine told her, "You need not be so vain, daughter, you are not the King's child, but old Grahame's." Catherine the younger married first James Annesley, 3rd Earl of Anglesey, and had a daughter Lady Catherine whose descendants include the Baron Mulgrave. After his death, she married John Sheffield, 1st Duke of Buckingham and Normanby.

In an age when women were considered 'The Weaker Vessel,' Catherine Sedley forged her own non-conformist path to happiness with wit and moxie. She used her god given wit to entice a king and keep him enthralled for over seven years, a lifetime for a royal mistrss. And instead of being tossed aside as a former mistress, she fought for the rights to the lands and money that were given to her. And she married happily and on her own terms, at a time when most women were considered past their prime.


Sources include:
Charles & Camilla: Portrait of a Love Affair - Gyles Brandreth
Sex Lives of Kings & Queens of England - Nigel Cawthorne
The Weaker Vessel - Antonia Fraser
Seductresses - Betsey Prioleau
The Diary of Samuel Pepys
Memoirs of the Court of England During the Reign of the Stuarts - John Heneage Jesse
History of England from First Invasion by the Romans - John Lingard
Royal Panoply - Carrolly Erickson
The Life of John Churchill, Duke of Marlborough to the Acession of Queen Anne - Garnet Wolseley Wolseley

Wednesday, August 20, 2008

Princess Pushy: The Fabulous Life of Princess Michael of Kent

She's tall, blonde and striking, married to a handsome prince, a member of The Royal Family. She's also haughty, gaffe (she once complained "The English distrust foreigners, they think the wogs begin at Calais") prone, and been linked to other men. Princess Anne dubbed her 'Princess Pushy' and the Queen once remarked mischievously to her husband's uncle, Lord Mountbatten 'that she sounds a bit grand to us.' Also known amongst the Royal Family as "Our Val" for Valkryie, Princess Margaret's son was said when asked what he would wish on his worst enemy, 'Dinner with Princess Michael of Kent.' The media have dubbed her the "Rent-a-Kents," for their habit of turning up at the opening of an envelope.

Who is this woman that has provoked such a sharp reaction in both the establishment and the media? How did the wife of a minor royal become such a lighting rod for bad behavior in a family where Prince Charles's youngest son once wore the uniform of a Nazi to a costume party (apparently he had no idea why that was such a no-no. And they say that Americans no nothing about history!), and the Duchess of York was caught getting her toes sucked by her financial advisor?

If you go to Princess Michael of Kent's web-site, you can trace her ancestry all the way back to Diane de Poitiers, along with Catherine the Great, Marie Antoinette and William the Conqueror. Quite a family for the former Marie Christine von Reibnitz or to be accurate Baroness Marie Christine Agnes Hedwig Ida von Reibnitz as she was born on January 15, 1945 in Carlsbad which is now part of the Czech Republic. Her mother was an Austro-Hungarian Countess, and her father Baron Gunther Hubertus von Reibnitz.

Her parents split up and her father moved to Mozambique while her mother decamped to Australia with Marie Christine and her younger brother Friedrich, where she ran a hair salon (makes one wonder where Princess Michael picked up her Eurotrash accent!). While growing up in Sydney, the future Princess Michael attended Catholic schools. After graduation, she headed off to Africa to finally get reacquainted with her long absent father. Marie Christine made her way to London where she did a course at the Victoria and Albert Museum and worked as an interior decorator. "Deep down inside me I always hear my mother's words: 900 years of breeding must be worth something."


She met her first husband, banker and Old Etonian, Thomas Troubridge, the younger brother of baronet Sir Peter Troubridge at a boar hunt of all places in Germany. They were married in 1971 and seperated two years later, although they didn't divorce until 1977. The marriage was later annulled in 1978 for undisclosed reasons but Marie-Christine was not allowed communion until she remarried in a Catholic ceremony which she and Prince Michael eventually did in 1983.

In the meantime, Marie Christine met her future second husband, Prince Michael of Kent while hunting (sense a theme?). "I was struck by this tall Austrian lady. I remember we had a long talk about the history of art while sitting in a hut eating sausages,' he has remarked. Her first impression was a little different. 'I just thought he was the funniest man I'd ever met. ' According to Princess Michael, they were friends first given that she was married, and Prince Michael was in another relationship. The prince would 'accidentally' run into her during early-morning rides in Richmond Park before he went to work at the Ministry of Defence. She would flatter his ego and spoil him which none of his English girlfriends had thought to do.

It was apparently that wily old matchmaker Lord Mountbatten who got them together by telling both Prince Michael and Marie Christine that the other was really keen on them, which then sparked their mutual interest. "One day Lord Mountbatten said to Michael, 'By the way, what are you going to do about that young woman?' He answered, 'Why should I do anything?' 'She's madly in love with you', came the reply. Then I too saw Lord Mountbatten and he said: 'What are you going to do about that young man? He's madly in love with you.' For all we knew, he believed it. I don't know but from then on we began to look at each other a little differently."

They married in June 30, 1978 in a civil ceremony in Vienna. Prince Michael had to give up his place in the succession since due to the Act of Succession of 1701 (at the time he was 15th in line for the throne), as no member of the Royal family can marry a Catholic and keep their place in the line of succession (their children Lord Frederick and Lady Gabriella were raised Anglican, and thus are still in the line of succession, although way down on the list, 31 and 32 respectively). Princess Michael has been quite vocal about how in the dark ages the attitude is, "They can marry a Moonie, A Seven-Day Adventist, a Scientologist, A Muslim. " (Okay, I have to agree with her on this one. If the heir to the throne can marry a divorcee that he had a thirty year affair with, I think they can bend and get rid of that Roman Catholic clause.)


Since then, Princess Michael has put her court shoes in her mouth more often than not. She attributes it to the fact that at 6ft tall in her stocking feet, she's hard to miss. Others put it down to her sense of entitlement. One of the first blows was the revelation that Princess Michael of Kent's father had not only been a member of the Nazi party but had also been in the SS, where he held the rank of Sturmbannfuhrer or "Assault Unit Leader" during the Second World War, although she produced papers that proved that he had actually been expelled from the party in 1944 (one wonders what he did to get the Nazi's to kick him out!)


Then there were the charges of plagiarism on her first two books Crowned in a Far Country, and Cupid and the King, which Princess Michael claims wasn't her fault but the fault of one of her researchers who didn't properly right down where the offending passages came from. In another interview, she allegedly claimed that she had more royal blood in her vieins than any person to marry into the royal family since Prince Philip. She's also a cat lover, in a family that adores dogs, particularly corgis. When she once complained about a cat being mauled by a corgi, she was promptly put in her place.

Her most famous moment stuffing those size 11's in her mouth came in 2004 while dining at Da Silvano, a restaurant much favored by celebrities in Greenwich Village. Objecting to the noise level at a table of black diners near hers, she first slammed her hand down on their table and allegedly told them to "Get back to the colonies," as she and her party were moved to another table. One of the women at the table, Nicole Young confronted the Princess about her remark. Prince Michael is reported to have replied "I did not say 'back to the colonies' - I said 'you should remember the colonies.' Back in the days of the colonies there were rules that were very good. You think about it. Just think about it." The New York Post reported that the diners thought that the remark was racist. She subsequently denied the charge. Her later explanation was that she had merely told one of her fellow dinner companions that she would be glad to go back to the colonies in order to escape the noise. In another article, she complained that she couldn't possibly be racist because she had once darkened her skin and pretended to be half-caste while traveling through Africa after a visit to her father.


In September 2005, she was caught on tape complaining about the Royal Family after a News of the World reporter pretendedto be a sheik, gained her confidence while pretending to be a buyer for her home Nether Lypiatt. In her defense, she wasn't the first royal to be caught out this way, Prince Edward's wife, Sophie Wessex too fell into the trapin 2001, which ended her PR career. While most of Princess Michael of Kent's revelations were pretty harmless (calling Princess Diana a 'nasty' and 'bitter' woman, who had been married merely as a 'womb'), it was her defense of Prince Harry for wearing the Swastika that really raised eyebrows. "But I believe that if he had been wearing the Hammer and Sickle there wouldn't have been so much fuss made." Recently Princess Michael has gone on record talking about how much smarter her children are then the other royals, having better education and a better degree than Prince William (Lord Frederick went to Oxford while Lady Ella graduated from Brown).

Princess Michael has a reputation for being someone who cultivates people who can and are willing to be generous in order to have a royal at their table (hence the nickname 'Rent-A-Kents'). She once convinced British Airways to lay on a special plane to ferry her from Manchester airport to London for a private engagement! She has also accepted gifts like a 150,000 pound building plot in Antigua from tycoon Peter de Savary and a 115,000 racehorse from another admirer. Since she and her husband receive no funds from the civil list, they are forced to actually work for a living. Prince Michael has his own consultancy business, and is fluent in several languages with a particular flair for Russian, which is appropriate for someone related to the Romanov's. He also holds several paid directorships with companies in the City. Princess Michael recently took a job as President of Partridge Fine Art, a gallery in New Bond Street. She has also given lectures around the world on various subjects related to her three books, however after her remarks at Da Silvano, there were fewer invites from the lucrative American market. Although they have no official duties, Princess Michael clearly likes to look and travel in royal style. She admits to having had botox which doesn't come cheap.


"I live in the 18th century in my mind," she once told an interviewer. "I see my whole life as a cultivation of taste. " Ah yes, when Royalty lived in splendid palaces, before a little thing called the French revolution! Unfortunately for the Kents, times are different. They were given a grace and favor apartment in Kensington Palace when they married (at various times royals from Princess Diana to Princess Margaret have lived at the Palace). However, in recent years, the public have complained about the fact that the Kents were paying only 67 pounds a week for the flat. The Queen stepped in and agreed to pay 10,000 pounds a month until 2010 by which time the Kents have to find another place to live. They've also had to sell their Cotswolds country estate Nether Lypiatt because of the upkeep, they received almost $11MM for the house.


Rumors about Princess Michael of Kent's marriage to Prince Michael started almost as soon as they were married. In 1985, she was seen leaving the apartment of Texas oil millionaire J. Ward Hunt wearing a rather tragic red wig, and there were rumors of her canoodling in a New York movie theater with Senator John Warner, ex-husband of Elizabeth Taylor. In 2006, she was seen holding hands, kissing, and taking romantic gondola rides with a Russian millionaire Mikhail Kravchenko, who the media were happy to report was 21 years younger, while on a trip to Venice, where they stayed in adjoining $4,000 a night rooms at the 5-star Hotel Cipriani. Princess Michael's explanation was that she holds hands and kisses all her friends, and that they were discussing business.

Until recently, it was assumed that Princess Michael of Kent wore the pants in the family and Prince Michael was just her mild-mannered hen-pecked hubby (shades of Sunny and Tsar Nicholas II who Prince Michael resembles). "She doesn't henpeck him, she lion-claws him," said a close friend. But it appears that still waters run deep. Recently, in the press, he was seen around town with an attractive blonde named Marianne Krex who is 30 years his junior. They even attended the ballet together with Marianne hiding her face from the cameras with her jacket. This isn't the first time that Prince Michael has been seen with a female friend. The ballet dancer Bryony Brind and historian Leonie Frieda are just two of the women he's been seen with without Princess Michael of Kent. Apparently Prince Michael is a regular at Julie's restaurant and bar where he takes many female 'friends. Lucy Weber, an American artist, is shopping around her memoirs, alleging that she and Prince Michael had an affair for 8 years. The artist kept a diary about her lover with such entries as "He loves sex pure, unadulterated. He thinks about it quite a bit during his working hours - loves white suspenders, beige or tan. His sexual senses are keen and he has a vivid imagination." Princess Michael went on the offense immediately, stating that her husband was not having an affair and that it was her idea for him to take Marianne Krex to the ballet. She also labels Lucy Weber as a fantasist.

If it is true, then the apple doesn't fall far from the tree. Prince Michael's father, the Duke of Kent, cut a wide swathe through society in the 1920's before his marraige to Princess Marina of Greece. He was alleged to have had affairs with everyone from the black singer Florence Mills to a 19 year affair with Noel Coward, there were even rumors of an illegitimate child, possibly Michael Canfield, Lee Radizwill's first husband. There were also rumors that he was addicted to drugs, cocaine and heroine, and that his cousin, the Prince of Wales used tough love to get him off. Prince Michael's mother, Princess Marina, Duchess of Kent, was no slouch in the lover department either, having had affairs (allegedly) with the conductor Sir Malcolm Sargent and the black society pianist Leslie Hutchinson. Prince Michael's niece Lady Helen Taylor was once known by the horrible nickname 'Melons' due to her ample cleavage, and was considered a bit of a party girl during the 1980's. Even Prince Michael's son, Lord Frederick has admitted dabbling in drugs at college.

Of course, it is possible that Prince and Princess Michael are innocent of any infidelity, that the friendships are simply what they say they are. After 30 years of marriage this past June, it is clear that they have come to some kind of understanding and contentment. Whatever the truth, it is clear that Princess Michael likes the perks and privileges that come from being a member of the Royal family, no matter how minor.

Perhaps Princess Michael herself says it best. "They will always have to have a bad girl in the family..but I'm not going to have sleepless nights worrying about what the good citizens of Newcastle are thinking about me."

Sources include:

Wikipedia
New York Social Diary
The Independent
The Daily Mail
The New York Post
The Royal Family web-site
Who's Really Who - Compton Miller

Monday, August 18, 2008

The Polls Are In!

And it's Mata Hari by 11 votes!

There were 7 votes each for both Boudicca, Queen of the Iceni and Elizabeth Bathory, as well as 6 votes apiece for Sarah Bernhardt and Pope Joan.

So look forward to a post on Mata Hari: Spy or Innocent Victim? in September, along with a post on Boudicca and Eva Peron.

Tuesday, August 12, 2008

Uncivil Wars: Lillian Hellman vs. Mary McCarthy and the Question of Julia

Author Lillian Hellman

Everyone’s memory is tricky and mine’s a little trickier than most --- Lillian Hellman

“A foremost literary fabulator of her generation, Lillian Hellman invented her life, so that by the end even she was uncertain about what had been true,” Joan Mellen.

In January 1980, a seemingly off the cuff remark by Mary McCarthy regarding Lillian Hellman sparked off a literary feud and a debate about truth, particularly in memoirs, that has raged on till this day.

McCarthy was a guest on the Dick Cavett show on PBS. The interview was begging to flag when Cavett asked McCarthy what writers she thought were overrated. Among the writers that she mentioned were Pearl S. Buck, John Steinbeck and Hellman who McCarthy said, "who I think is tremendously overrated, a bad writer, a dishonest writer, but she really belongs to the past." Cavett, of course, asked McCarthy what was overrated about Hellman. McCarthy replied that "Everything. I once said in an interview that every word she writes is a lie, including 'and' and 'the.'"






Mary McCarthy

It was the literary equivalent of the shot heard around the world. Hellman was watching that night and was incensed. She immediately called her friend, the writer John Hersey and told him of her intention of suing, inviting him to join her in the lawsuit (McCarthy had said a few derogatory words about Hersey's prose.) Hersey declined and tried to convince Hellman not to sue. Instead, Hellman slapped a $2.25MM lawsuit against not only McCarthy, but also the Educational Broadcasting System and Dick Cavett. The lawsuit claimed that McCarthy's statement was "false, made with ill-will, with malice, with knowledge of its falsity, with careless disregard of its truth, and with the intent to injure the plaintiff personally and professionally."

McCarthy, at first thought the lawsuit, was a joke. When she realized the seriousness of the issue, and that Hellman intended to pursue it, she began to worry about her finances. McCarthy had only about $63,000 in savings, while Hellman was a wealthy woman (she owned the copyrights to Hammett's work as well as the royalties from her memoirs and plays) who someone had convinced her lawyer to take her case pro bono. It was clear that Hellman's intention was to bankrupt McCarthy.

McCarthy's lawyer argued that McCarthy's comments were literary criticism, which was protected by the First Amendment. "The fact is Mary's a critic with a right to make judgements, and Lillian Hellman's a public figure," Dwight MacDonald, a friend and fellow writer claimed (Writing Dangerously, Brightman, page 601). Her lawyers claimed that her quip was "rhetorical hyperbole." However on television, it sounded defamatory.



McCarthy apparently knew that the question was going to come up in the television interview. Her friend Frani Muser remembered talking about Hellman with McCarthy the morning of the interview. "She knew it was coming," (Writing Dangerously, page 610). Muser added that the remark about "everything she writes is a lie including "and" and "the" came from a Paris Metro interview, and they had joked about it. Clearly McCarthy thought it was just a funny quip on a literary television show on a public television station.

The minute the news hit, the literary world immediately weighed in on either side. Diana Trilling, William F. Buckley, Irving Howe, and Dwight MacDonald weighed in. No stranger to literary feuds himself, Norman Mailer took it upon himself to play peacekeeper, with his article in The New York Times entitled an "Appeal to Lillian Hellman and Mary McCarthy." Needless to say his efforts were not rewarded, especially by Lillian Hellman, who was known to hold grudges and could be spiteful. According to one of her biographers, Carl Rollyson, she was one of four people who sued Nixon to get the Watergate tapes released. When she called Dick Cavett to ask him why he hadn't defended her against Mary McCarthy, Cavett suggested that Hellman come on the show to defend herself. Hellman refused. The idea of having to defend herself against a charge of dishonesty was anathema to her. To the public at large it must have looked like two cranky old ladies bitching at each other.

Mailer even used the defense that McCarthy was attacking a frail bird who was half-blind. This was despite the fact that Hellman was still feisty enough to threaten to scream if her nurse didn't give her a cigarette. At the time of the lawsuit, Hellman was 72 and looked older and McCarthy was a still good-looking woman of 65. By the time, Hellman died 5 years later, McCarthy had aged considerably. While the lawsuit probably invigorated Hellman and kept her alive, the stress took its toll on McCarthy.

What was the source of the enmity between Hellman and McCarthy. Was it political or personal? Was it out and out jealousy of one well regarded but lesser known writer against a more popular and rich author? Some say the feud started because Hellman either slept with or attempted to seduce McCarthy's lover at the time, Philip Rahv, the editor of The Partisan Review. Hellman's lawyer Ephraim London believed that it was simple jealousy, while McCarthy was revered, she wasn't nearly as successful as Hellman whose memoirs had each spent weeks on the best-seller lists. McCarthy's friends felt that Hellman was jealous that McCarthy was an intellectual, accepted by the New York literati, and Hellman was seen as the author of several well-made but melodramatic plays.

Others saw it as a continuation of the feud of the anti-Stalinists of which McCarthy was an early member vs. the Stalinists which included Hellman, Hammett, and other left-wing liberals who continued to defend Stalin long after his crimes had been made public. Hellman once chastized Kruschev for turning against Stalin, she felt he was disloyal. Although she claimed not to know anything about the Moscow purge trials, Hellman had signed petitions applauding the guilty verdicts and encouraged others not to cooperate with a committee that sought to establish the truth behind the trials. McCarthy, herself, said that the enmity was personal. She hated what she saw as Hellman's attempts to make herself look more like a heroine at the expense of others. Her ire was particularly incensed by Hellman's memoir Scoundrel Time. "I mean you'd read this goddamn Scoundrel Time and you'd think she went to jail almost!" (Writing Dangerously, Brightman, page 604).

For those of us born after the McCarthy era, it can be hard to understand how the wounds from that time continued to fester even thirty years after the fact. Witness the outpouring of vitriol when Elia Kazan was given an honorary Oscar several years ago (the closest I can come up with is the anti-war hippies vs. the men who actually served in Vietnam). The feud between McCarthy and Hellman dredged up memories of a time that people had long tried to forget. The anger of those who saw Hellman taking credit for doing something (talking about herself, but not naming names before HUAC) that others had done before her.

On the surface, both women seemed to have a lot in common. Both came from troubled childhoods. McCarthy, who was seven years younger than Hellman, lost both her parents in the influenza epidemic in 1918 when she was 5 years old. She and her brothers were left in the care of their paternal grandparents who found it difficult to all of a sudden have three children to take care of. Instead McCarthy and her brothers were under the direct care of an aunt and uncle who were abusive. McCarthy eventually ended up living in Seattle with maternal grandparents. Hellman spend her childhood shuttling between the boarding house in New Orleans owned by her father's unmarried sisters, and an apartment in New York. A Daddy's girl, she had no use for her mother, who she considered weak. While McCarthy went to Vassar, where she felt out of place amongst the rich girls, Hellman dropped out of NYU after two years. Both married and divorced young, both started their careers in the early thirties, McCarthy writing theater reviews and Hellman as a playwright. Both early in their careers were known more for being the girlfriend of prominent men, Hellman with Dashiell Hammett, her companion for the next thirty years, and McCarthy first with Philip Rahv, and then with her second marriage to Edmund Wilson.

While Hellman had initially wanted to become a novelist, McCarthy had ambitions to acting and playwrighting. Her first husband Harald Johnsrud had been an actor and playwright. Hellman had dabbled in writing short stories, succeeding in getting two of them published. She had also worked as a reader at MGM, when her husband Arthur Kober had been hired as a screenwriter. It was in Hollywood that Hellman met Dashiell Hammett, then the celebrated author of The Maltese Falcon and The Dain Curse. It was Hammett who steered Hellman towards the case that became the basis of The Children's Hour and encouraged her to try playwrighting.

Hellman and McCarthy had only met a few times in their lives, the most notable being at Sarah Lawrence College in 1947, at a dinner party thrown by the college president, Harold Taylor, to discuss a writer's conference. McCarthy attended as did Stephen Spender who was also teaching at the college. Hellman was an invited guest. Just before dinner, McCarthy overheard Hellman flippantly telling a group of students that the writer and painter John Dos Passos had sold out the Loyalists during the Spanish Civil War because "he didn't like the food in Madrid." Incensed, McCarthy stormed in and proceeded to tell the students that if they wanted to know the truth about Dos Passos's change of heart, they should read his book, Adventures of a Young Man. Hellman, in turn, was not pleased at being dressed down in front of a group of students. The next year, McCarthy and Dwight McDonald were a handful of anti-Stalinists who infiltrated the Waldorf Conference in 1948.

McCarthy's case was struck a blow in early 1984, when Justice Harold Baer Jr. denied her motion to dismiss the suit. The judge stated that "to call someone dishonest, to say to a national television audience that every word she writes is a lie, seems to fall on the actionable side fo the ine - outside what has become known as the 'marketplace of ideas.'" He also agreed with Hellman's lawyer Ephraim London's contention that Hellman was not a public figure. This despite her years as a well known playwright whose works had been performed as far away as Moscow, whose books had regularly hit the best seller lists, and who had appeared in one of Blackglama mink's famous "What Becomes A Legend Most" ads.

As part of her defence, McCarthy began to go comb through Hellman's memoirs looking for inconsistencies, and places where she might have out and out lied. She was helped in this endeavor by the journalist Martha Gellhorn, who devoted 16 pages to Hellman in forty page article in The Paris Review denouncing what she called Apocryphiars. While McCarthy concentrated her defense on the memoirs An Unfinished Woman and Scoundrel Time, others were quick to question the section called simply 'Julia' of Hellman's second memoir Pentimento.

Enter Muriel Gardiner Buttinger.

Ever since Pentimento came out, Gardiner's friends had questioned whether or not she was the inspiration for Julia. Their stories were similar. Like Julia, Gardiner was an American from a wealthy background. Her father was Edward Morris, the president of Morris & Company, a meat-packing business, but her mother was a member of the Swift family. From her early childhood, she was aware of the differences between her station in life and the poor around her. She developed a life-long commitment to social and political reform.

Gardiner graduated from Wellesley College in 1922, and traveled to Europe to continue her studies. Like Hellman's Julia, she studied at Oxford. Initially she went to Vienna hoping to be analyzed by Sigmund Freud (Hellman's Julia was analyzed by Freud). Instead she received a degree in medicine from the University of Vienna. After marrying Joseph Buttinger, the leader of the Austrian Revolutionary Socialist movement, she became involved in anti-fascist activities. Used the code name: Mary as she smuggled passports, money, and offered her home to anti-fascists, before finally leaving Austria in 1939 with her husband and child. Gardiner became a noted psychiatrist and psychoanalyst who edited The Wolf-man by the Wolf-Man, a case history of a wealthy young Russian who went to Vienna in 1910 to be psychoanalyzed by Freud.

The main difference between Gardiner's story and Hellman's Julia was that Gardiner and her child lived while Julia was beaten severely by the Nazi's and died, and her child was also eventually killed by the Nazi's in an improbable circumstances.

While Hellman claimed never to have met Gardiner, Hellman’s lawyer Wolf Schwabacher was also a friend of Gardiner, and had knew Gardiner’s story. Gardiner stated that Schwabacher often talked about his famous client, so it is hard to believe that Schwabacher didn’t mention to Hellman that he had a friend who had been part of the underground in Vienna. At the time of the publication of Pentimento, Gardiner claimed that she had written to Hellman who said that she never received the letter. Gardiner later wrote an account of her story, although she never claimed that she was Julia. Eventually she had planned on suing Hellman for appropriating her story but Hellman died before the suit could be filed. Hellman never revealed who the real ‘Julia’ was, she claimed at the time that there reasons why her true name could not be revealed, among them the idea that she might have been sued, although Julia was dead. Another excuse that she gave was that the Germans were still persecuting early Anti-Nazi's.


In 1983, Gardiner's own memoirs, Code Name: Mary was published by Yale University Press. An article by Edwin McDowell entitled "New Memoir Stirs 'Julia' controversy' was published in The New York Times. Both the Yale University press release and the book's dust jacket declared that many people believed that Dr. Gardiner's story was the model for Hellman's Julia. However, Hellman responded, "she may have been the basis for someone else's Julia but not certainly not mine."

Still the matter would not rest. Journalists began to examine the story closely and inconsistencies began to pop up. While Hellman insisted that 'Julia' was not the woman's real name, in the story Julia says that the 17th Century poet John Donne must have written his poem entitled Julia with her in mind. In an earlier story in An Unfinished Woman, Hellman had described a woman named Alice that she had worked with who had the same exact story as Julia's. Ephraim London begged Hellman to release the name of the real 'Julia' but Hellman refused. Gardiner, however, questioned others who had been part of the resistance with her, if they knew of any other American woman who was studying in Vienna who had been part of the resistance. The answer was always 'only Mary,' Gardiner's own code name. Even the archives of the Austrian resistance, contain no information of another American woman with a similar background to Gardiner's. No other friends of either Hellman's or Julia's came forward to confirm her story. They couldn't have all have been dead. Apparently none of Hellman's friends had ever heard the story of Julia until Pentimento came out.

The crux of the Julia story in Pentimento was Julia asking Hellman to smuggle $50,000 in a fur hat for use of the Resistance. Hellman and Julia agreed to meet in Berlin. This is were the inconsistencies come in, everything from the timetable of Hellman's trip to Moscow via Berlin, the need for at least 8 operatives to help Hellman on her journey to deliver the money for Julia, to the reasons why Julia needed Hellman to smuggle the money all. Even the ship that Hellman supposedly took to bring Julia's ashes back to New York came into question.

In June of 1984, Hellman passed away at the age of 79, leaving the fate of the lawsuit hanging in the air. Her executors decided not to continue with the case, which incensed McCarthy who was eager to have her day in court. When she heard about Hellman’s death, McCarthy said ''If someone had told me, don't say anything about Lillian Hellman because she'll sue you, it wouldn't have stopped me. It might have spurred me on. I didn't want her to die. I wanted her to lose in court. I wanted her around for that.'' McCarthy herself passed away in 1989 at the age of 77.

The case began a debate that has continued to this day with the James Frey/JT Ellroy/Augustin Burroughs memoirs. When is it okay in a memoir for an author to a) invent events out of whole cloth b) exaggerate events for dramatic purposes or c) appropriate other's experiences as their own? There are authors and critics who come down on both sides of the fence. The problem comes when the distortions make the reader question whether anything they have read is true. There is an unwritten contract between the reader and the author while reading a memoir or a work of fiction. When that is violated, it can leave the reader feeling like a chump, sold a bag of goods, a hollow feeling. While one expects that some liberties might be taken (no one's memory is infallible), one doesn't expect out and out lies presented as truth.

McCarthy was known throughout her life for seeking out the truth in her memoirs, she would go back again and again to the same events, even at the expense of her friends and family, in her need to seek out the truth. She was noted for her sharp tongue, for her ability in her criticism to take on writers that she considered overrated. Hellman, on the other hand, while polite on the surface was full of anger. She used her memoirs to get back at those people who she felt had slighted her.

But did Hellman lie in her memoirs? Or was she convinced that she was telling the truth? That Julia did exist? That events happened in An Unfinished Woman, Pentimento and Scoundrel Time the way she wrote them? In William Wright's Biography of Hellman, Lillian Hellman, The Image, The Woman, he relates an anecdote from Diana Trilling, where Hellman was convinced that Trilling was two years older than her, even though they were the same age. Hellman was also almost pathologically protective of Hammett's legacy and her role in it. She fired one biographer after reading three chapters. "Where am I in all this?" she asked him. She finally hired noted novelist Diane Johnson to write Hammett's biography and then browbeat the woman into not including any material she found in her research that contradicted anything that Hellman had written in her three memoirs. That included Hellman's contention that she had tried to raise money for Hammett's bail after he had been sentenced to prison for contempt, when the reality was that she had nothing to do with it. Hellman's stories about had been so convincing that they were repeated in other biographies that were written about him as fact.

But there was an even bigger issue at stake than just what is truth in memoirs and that is the First Amendment issue. In his "An Appeal to Lillian Hellman and Mary McCarthy" which appeared in The New York Times, Mailer argued that for Hellman to win the case would mean that it would become difficult for other writer's to criticize each other's work, although he took exception to McCarthy's assertion that Hellman's writing was dishonest.

When the Founding Fathers drafted the constitution, they had no crystal ball nor was Nostradamus around to predict the role of radio, television and the internet on free speech. The issue was considered so serious that Floyd Abrams, a constitutional lawyer who defended The New York Time's right to print The Pentagon Papers, joined McCarthy's legal team, after McCarthy's motion to dismiss the lawsuit was denied. Hellman's lawyer urged her to settle, he was afraid that she would lose the case, with all the evidence that McCarthy's legal team had amassed but McCarthy would have none of it.

But in the end both women lost in the court of public opinion. One wonders today how Hellman would have fared on Oprah. Would she have been given the James Frey treatment or would Oprah have put on the Hermes gloves? In the years since her death, Hellman has seen the systematic dismantling of her reputation as a writer in regards to her memoirs as biographer after biographer tabulates the factual errors and downright lies. It’s almost become a cottage industry. Five new biographies have been published; she’s been the subject of a fawning TV movie starring Judy Davis, and several plays have been written about her, the most recent being The Julia Wars by William Wright (one of her biographers). Of her plays, only The Children’s Hour, and The Little Foxes are revived frequently.

Mary McCarthy, as in life, has had to settle for a little less, two recent biographies since her death in 1989. Her brother, the actor Kevin McCarthy, is probably better known than she is to the public at large. Her biggest success, The Group, seems quaint now compared compared to the sexual candor of recent fiction. Her memoirs, especially Memories of a Catholic Schoolgirl, and How I Grew, however, are held up as some of the finest examples of the genre. When people think of the two women now, invariably the lawsuit comes up, it has now become in a way their epitaph.

Sources:

Lillian Hellman, The Image, The Woman: William Wright
Telling Lies in Modern American Biography – Timothy Dow Adams
Seeing Mary Plain – Frances Kiernan

Writing Dangerously - Carol Brightman
Imaginary Friends – Nora Ephron
Hellman & Hammett: The Legendary Passion of Lillian Hellman and Dashiell Hammett – Joan Mellen
Lillian Hellman: A Life With Foxes and Scoundrels – Deborah Martinson
Lillian Hellman: Her Legend and Her Legacy – Carl Rollyson

Periodicals:

“Julia” & Other Fictions by Lillian Hellman – Samuel McCracken (Commentary Magazine, June 1984)
Lillian, Mary and Me – Dick Cavett (The New Yorker, December 16, 2002)
“Who Was Julia?” – Alexander Cockburn (The Nation, February 23, 1985)
“Lillian Hellman Wins Round in Suit,” Marcia Chambers (The New York Times, May 11, 1984)
“Reading and Writing; Literary Invective,” Walter Goodman (The New York Times, June 19, 1983)
“An Appeal to Lillian Hellman and Mary McCarthy,” Norman Mailer (The New York Times, May 11, 1980)

Friday, August 8, 2008

New Poll Up!

I've just put up a new poll to get your feedback on what Scandalous Women you want to see featured on the blog in the next few weeks.

Coming up in October, I will be doing Tudor Month (which may kill me!) where I will be featuring some of the most scandalous women of that era, including Bess of Hardwick, Bloody Mary and Lettice Knollys.

Monday, July 28, 2008

Murder Most English - Florence Bravo and the Balham Mystery

It was a mystery that has baffled people for over a century, even Agatha Christie couldn't solve it. Who murdered Charles Bravo that dark April night in 1876? Leading doctors, including Queen Victoria's physician, Sir William Gull, were called in to try and save his life but to no avail. The only thing they could agree on was that he had been poisoned by antimony. Bravo suffered for three days in excruciating agony but gave no indication of who he thought might have wanted to cause him harm.

At the time of the inquest, the news reports eclipsed even government and international news. And at the center was Bravo's wife, Florence Campbell Bravo. What was it about this case that made it so interesting to mystery writers over the past hundred years or so? And what made it so scandalous that people are still interested to this day?

Florence Campbell was born in 1845, the second of seven children. Her father Robert Campbell had made his fortune in Australia where the family lived for several years before moving to England, where they bought Buscot Park in Berkshire, while also maintaining a house in Lowndes Square in Knightsbridge, London. Her childhood was idyllic by anyone's standards, surrounded by servants, with holidays abroad. She was her father's favorite child, and he had spoiled her. Florence grew up to be a beautiful woman, with auburn curls, grey eyes, and a lush figure, determined to have her own way in all things. As a child, she would sulk for days if she was thwarted. While she was beautiful and vivacious, there was also an air of fragility in her, that called out to a man's instinct to protect. She loved animals, her mother noted that she was inconsolable on her 18th birthday, because a family pet had died.

At the age of 19, while on a trip to Canada, she met Alexander Ricardo, where he was stationed in the Grenadier Guards. He was tall, dark and handsome in his grey-green uniform, Byronic she called him. Florence saw him across the proverbial crowded room at a party. Years later Florence could recall in minute detail the exact moment she saw him. She managed to effect an introduction, they danced 3 times that night, and then slipped out to the balcony to talk. It was love at first sight, and Florence couldn't wait to tell her father about the man she had met. Her father was impressed by Ricardo's lineage. Alexander's father, John Ricardo was a Liberal MP who had also founded the International Telegraph Company, and Ricardo's mother was sister to the Duke of Fife. When the time came for the Campbell's to leave Canada, Ricardo arranged a three month leave to England to court Florence. Within six weeks of his arrival, they were engaged. By the end of the 3 months they were married. Her father settled a thousand pounds a year on her, not an inconsiderable sum.


The old saying 'marry in haste, repent in leisure' certainly was true in Florence's case with her first marriage. Florence had no intention of being an army wife, it was only a few years after the devastating war in the Crimea and she worried that he would be sent to India or Africa where he might be killed. She pressured him to quit, which left him dangling at loose ends. The army was all her knew, he had no desire to go into business. He missed the discipline and structure of the army, not to mention the camraderie of his fellow officers. He tried to go into business with his father, and he also worked for awhile for Florence's father, but he would lose interest after a few months which gave him plenty of time to drink and carouse, and soon there were rumors of other women. Florence discovered that she was married to a full blown alcoholic who became verbally abusive after a few drinks, accusing her of trapping him, of ruining his life. At first Florence tried to ignore what was going on, but then she took to spending weeks alone at her father's cottage in Brighton or touring the coast with her friends to get away from him. After six years of marriage, Ricardo was rarely sober.


Matters finally came to ahead one night one Christmas when Florence chastized her husband for insulting her sister. Ricardo struck her three times in the face. Florence fled to her parents, pouring out her story. She begged them to let her stay. Her father was appalled at the idea of seperation, finding it morally repugnant. Florence had married Ricardo, and it was up to her to make the marriage work, no matter what. The next morning, he insisted that she return to her husband. Florence refused, if her parents would not allow her to stay with them, she would find someplace else, but returning to Ricardo was not an option. Her mother suggested a compromise, that Florence spend some time at the Hydro, a fashionable sanitorium run by James Gully, in Great Malvern. Once she felt better, then she could make a decision.


The Hydro at Great Malvern was run by Dr. James Gully, a friend of her family. Florence had known him since childhood when he had treated her for a throat infection. Gully was 63 at the time, well known for practising hydrotherapy or the "water cure." Along with his partner, James Wilson, he had founded the clinic at Malvern in Worcestershire, where many notable Victorians sayed, including Charles Darwin and Alfred, Lord Tennyson.

Gully, like many of the participants in this little drama, was born in Jamaica, the son of a wealthy coffee planter. He left Jamaica at an early age to attend school in England as most of the sons of the Empire did. While in school, his family lost their fortune when slavery was abolished in the British colonies. Although they were recompensed for the loss of their 'property,' Gully now faced the fact that he would have to work for a living. He later told Florence that it had been a good thing because it forced him to make something of himself. In 1825, he entered the University of Edinburgh to study medicine along with one Charles Darwin, gaining his MD in 1829. Dissastified with the medical treatment of the time, he made the acquaintance of Wilson who itnroduced him to the idea of hydrotherapy. Gully wrote several papers on the treatment, and became a member of the British Homeopathic Society in 1848. Soon he and the clinic became well known among the well to do, leading to the opening of two more clinics in Malvern to handle the increasing number of patients who were flocking to be treated. Of course, along with fame, comes criticism and Gully and Wilson came in for their fair share.

Gully surprised her by taking her side in the matter of her seperation from her husband. In fact he went one better and offered to help her by becoming her legal guardian. He instructed his lawyers to have the papers drawn up, including an annual alimony payment for Florence, and he offered to allow her to stay at the Hydro for free. Of course, when Ricardo heard the news, he flooded her with letters pleading his case. Like most abusers, he was now contrite. But they fell on deaf ears, Florence refused to either see him or to read the letters and telegrams he sent her.

When Gully told Florence she was well enough to leave, she protested that she had no where to go, but the truth was that she didn't want to leave Gully. She was totally infatuated with him. Gully arranged for her to rent a house in Malvern. They had spent increasing time together at the Hydro, and Gully had told her about his life, his marriage, his work. He invited her to join him on a trip to Kissingen, in Bavaria. It was there that they became lovers for the first time.


It almost seems inevitable that Florence and Gully should develop a relationship. Gully was a firm believer in causes like women's suffrage. He also advocated temperance which would have appealed to Florence having been saddled with an alcoholic husband. While most Victorian men believed that women were frail creatures that needed to be protected, Gully believed that the pyschological problems that many Victorian women suffered were due to the pressures they were under to remain on a pedestal as chaste virtuous women who never had sexual desire or a thought in their head that wasn't put their by their husbands or fathers.


Gully was married, to an older woman who he had been seperated from for over thirty years, she now lived in an asylum. He wasn't exactly the image of a lothario, he was bald, wore a monacle, and he was slightly rotund. Florence, at 26, fell under the spell of this kindly man who seemed to provide the care and attention that she never received from her husband. Unlike most Victorian men, Gully believed that women had sexual needs, and he took the care to make sure that Florence had pleasure in bed.

In April of 1871, Florence learned that she was now a widow. Alexander Ricardo had died in a hotel room in Cologne from drink. Since he had not changed his will, Florence inherited his entire estate, to the tune of forty thousand pounds. Not only was she free, but she was also a wealthy woman in her own right. No longe would she have to rely on her parents for support. Immediately Florence made plans to leave Malvern and move to London where the action was, and she convinced Gully to join her. Gully took some convincing but he didn't want to be away from Florence. This wasn't just a love affair, they were secretly engaged, waiting for the day when Gully's wife was no longer living, and they could be married. He bought a house less than five minutes walk from Florence's in Balham.

Florence bought a mansion called the Priory in Balham and soon after she hired a companion, a woman named Jane Cox. Jane Cox had been born in England but had spent several years in Jamaica after she married. After her husband's death, she had returned to England, with her three sons so they could attend school. She borrowed money from her husband's former employer, so that she could buy a small house in Notting Hill which she let out, while living in a small furnished room. She had worked as a nanny for a curate and a solicitor, where she interviewed with Florence for the post of companion. Florence was impressed by the older woman's qualities. Cox was the perfect companion, she loyal, hardworking and cheerful. She had perfected the fine art of being invisible, with a quiet voice that one had to strain to hear. Before long, Florence offered her the job of her companion, and Jane Cox moved into the Priory. The two women soon became close friends, and Florence began to rely on Jane increasingly. They called each other 'Florrie' and 'Janie', and Cox began to look on Florence as the daughter she never had.


Soon after Florence and Gully moved to Balham, their passion for each led to them to make a serious mistake. While staying with her solicitor and his wife in Surrey, Florence and Gully were caught in flagrante delicto on the couch by them, when they came back to the house early from a walk. The solicitor and his wife were horrified and appalled, not only that the two were having an adulterous affair, but that they had been so crass as to abuse their hospitality by openly fornicating on their sofa. Gossip about the affair spread like wildfire via the servant grapevine. Soon everyone, including Florence's parents knew about the relationship. And they were not happy about it. Not only had Gully transgressed the doctor/patient relationship, but the idea that there daughter would have an adulterous affair with a man old enough to be her grandfather was beyond the pale. This coming so soon after the disaster of her marriage to Ricardo was too much for the Campbell's and they cut off all contact with Florence. Her letters and telegrams were returned unopened. Even Florence's sister refused to see her.

Despite the ostracism of society, the relationship continued. However, the end came when Florence accidentally became pregnant while on holiday with Gully in Austria, the primative forms of birth control that they had used had failed. This was a disaster, an illegitimate child would have ruined Florence permanently, and damaged Gully's reputation further. There was no alternative but for Gully to perform an abortion on Florence which he reluctantly did. There were complications after the surgery and Florence almost died. From that moment, the relationship changed and became platonic, although Gully was still clearly in love with Florence.

Jane Cox nursed Florence through her illness after the abortion, keeping the truth from the servants but she could see how the social ostracism was beginning to effect her. Florence was a social creature, it wounded her terribly that the doors to society were now shut to her. It became Jane Cox's mission to find Florence another husband. Perhaps if she were respectably married, things might change.


It was through Jane Cox that Florence Ricardo met Charles Bravo. Cox's late husband had worked for Bravo's partner in Jamaica. Mrs. Cox had only met Charles on a few occasions but he seemed exactly what Florence needed. While shopping in London, the two women called upon the Bravo house, where Charles and Florence met for the first time. Several days later, Mrs. Cox stopped by again, this time to sell Florence to Charles's parents.

It was in Brighton while attending the sports day for Mrs. Cox's eldest son that Florence met Bravo again while strolling along the sea front a meeting engineered once again by Mrs. Cox. Charles told Florence he was there on business. He danced almost constant attendance on Florence which she found flattering. It was soon clear that Charles was interested in more than just making her acquaintance, he was serious about her.

On the surface, Charles seemed like the perfect man, he was witty, urbane, and cynical. A man who had a zest for life, who could talk knowledgeably about politics as well as literature. He was somewhat attractive, but looking at this picture, his eyes are mean, his expression somewhat sullen and cruel. The same age as Florence, he was born in 1845, the only son of Augustus and Mary Turner. When Charles was a small boy, his father died, and his mother later remarried Joseph Bravo, a wealthy merchant from Jamaica. Educated at King's College, London and at Oxford, Charles had trained to be a barrister. He was called to the bar in 1868, and set up a small practice with a friend Edward Hope, in the Temple. He was ambitious, with plans to eventually stand for Parliament. He was also a typical Victorian gentleman, with memberships in private clubs such as Boodles and Whites. Unfortunately, he only made two hundred pounds a year, not exactly a princely sum for a man of his ambitions. His biggest flaw, was that he had no sense of a common humanity. As far as he was concerned the world was divided into 'us' and 'them.'


Back home, they began to spend a great deal of time together, when they were apart, they kept up a steady correspondance. Soon Charles proposed marriage. The only sticking point was Dr. Gully. Although their relationship was now platonic, Florence still had warm feelings towards him. Before she could make a fresh start with Charles, she would have to break things off with Gully. Not only that, but Florence felt the need to confess to Bravo about the affair. Jane Cox tried to warn Florence not to do it, that she could be ruining her chance with Bravo. But Florence decided to risk it. After all there was a very good chance that Bravo might have heard the rumors about her relationship with Gully from someone else who might put an entirely different spin on the affair.

To her great surprise, Bravo took the news with ease. He confessed that he was not blameless, he had kept a mistress and there was a child. They agreed that they would break off both liaisons and never mention them again. Bravo asked Florence to marry him again and she agreed. Florence send Gully the Victorian equivalent of a 'Dear John' letter. When Gully heard the news, he advised Florence to take her time and not rush into anything, so that she could get to know Charles and his family properly. Once again, Florence ignored the well meaning advice. And Bravo was just as eager to get the show on the road so to speak. The wedding was set for December 14, 1875. Gully was upset, even more so when Florence asked him to move away from the area. He had sacrificied a great deal for his relationship with Florence, leaving the clinic at Malvern to be with her. His reputation had suffered as well when the news of their affair had gotten out. Gully refused to move, instead he cut off all communication with Florence.


The first sign of trouble occurred before the marriage. Bravo was enraged that Florence planned to keep her fortune in her name, which was now her right since the Married Woman's Property Act. It was revealed that Charles had debts of over 500 pounds, which was a huge sum at the time. 'I cannot contemplate a marraige which doesn't make me master in my own house.' Florence turned to Gully for advice. He suggested that she make ownership of the Priory to Bravo. Florence reluctantly agreed. But that was not the only disagreement. Florence suspected that their temperments didn't suit and wrote Bravo a letter to that effect. Why after suspecting that Bravo was after her money, did Florence decided to go through with the marriage? According to James Ruddick in his book, Death at the Priory, Charles had gotten Florence pregnant before the wedding. He was known to have spent nights at The Priory (Florence later told the inquest that his mother worried about him catching a chill in the late night air if he returned home), it would have been a simple matter for Bravo to demand his marital rights beforehand. After all, why shouldn't he taste what Gully already had? The dye was cast, things had gone to far, what assurances had she that any other man would have wanted to marry her once he found out about Gully? Marriage to Charles Bravo would give her back the veneer of respectability.


After a short honeymoon in Brighton, the newlyweds returned to the Priory. Slowly Florence found that society was beginning to open its doors to her again. She threw a party at Christmas for 30 guests including the Mayor of Streatham. For a brief moment they were happy. Charles would write to Florence when he was away at Sessions. 'Apart from the beginning of my first marriage, this was the happiest time of my life,' she later said. But cracks began to appear before the ink was even dry on the marriage license. Bravo received several anonymous letters accusing him of marrying Florence for her money. He suspected Dr. Gully of being the culprit. Far from refraining from ever mentioning his name, now it appeared that Bravo was obsessed with Gully.


Charles soon proved that he was the model of a Victorian husband in more ways than one. He expected total obedience from his wife in all things, after all he was the man, and she was just a woman. Wives in Victorian England for the most part were treated like domestic animals to be petted but kept in line with a firm hand. Most women knew this, accepted and found ways around it. While Florence was no suffragette, she was not the type of woman to pretend to be meek and submissive just because it was expected behavior. After the failure of her first marriage, she no longer believed in complete obedience to a man just because of his sex. Soon after the New Year, Bravo told Florence that things would have to change at the Priory. She was living too extravagantly, and he needed to curb her spendthrift ways. He insisted that she dismiss her personal maid, and use the housemaid. And that was just the beginning, he also wanted her to dismiss one of the gardeners, as well as get rid of her horses. Florence refused and Bravo exploded in rage. The struggle between them had just begun. He would threaten to leave her if he didn't get his way, storming out of the house. Florence would not submit, after all she held the purse strings. The only place that Bravo could force Florence to submit was in the bedchamber. Apparently it wasn't above him to force her into practices that she considered degrading including sodomy.


Soon Florence was pregnant. Although she fled to her parents for a few days, the reality was that now that she was with child, she had no choice but to go back to Bravo. In the meantime, Charles like Alexander before him, flooded her with pleading letters. The only difference being that Charles refused to admit that he was wrong. While Florence was at her parents, Bravo determined that Mrs. Cox had to go. It was not only the expense but the closeness between the two women. Instead of turning to her husband, Florence depended on Mrs. Cox for advice, and Mrs. Cox inevitably took Florence's side. Mrs. Cox was distraught, she had many debts, including a mortgage on her house, and she'd taken out a loan in 1868 to start a school which had failed. She desperately needed the job, and although Florence promised to protect her, Mrs. Cox worried that Charles increasing need to have control would force Florence to capitulate just to keep the peace.


Shortly after her return, Florence miscarried. Bravo showed his complete insensivity by striking her when Florence told him that she had planned on a trip to Worthing to recover. He also insisted that they try again only three weeks after she lost their child. He took no notice of how depressed and ill she was after the miscarriage. Florence was afraid, she doubted that she could carry a child to fruition, and if she did, that it might kill her. Besides the abortion, Florence had had other gynecological problems. While she could conceive easily enough, carrying a child seemed to be a problem. But there was nothing she could do. Two weeks after they resumed relations, she was pregnant again. This pregnancy didn't last long either, less than a month later, Florence miscarried while working in the garden. Soon after she discovered that she was pregnant, Bravo was struck down briefly by a mysterious illness one day on his way to work in London. He was hit by a wave of nausea, and was violently ill, but by the end of the day, he felt better.


By April of 1876, things were tense in the Bravo household. On that day of April 18th, Bravo went out riding. He returned to the house so badly shaken that he had to be helped into a chair, his horse spooked by something had run away with him. After a presumably long hot bath, Bravo joined Florence and Jane Cox for dinner. During dinner, he received a letter from his stepfather, Joseph Bravo, with a stockbroker's report which he had received by mistake. It appeared that Charles had suffered some losses in the market. Bravo was furious at his gambling. Florence said later that 'His face worked the whole of dinner and he had such a strange yellow look. I thought he would go mad at any moment.' Bravo's bad mood didn't abate, he accused Florence of having too much drink, after hearing her ask her maid to bring her a glass of Marsala wine to drink before bed. That night Bravo slept in his own room down the hall, as Florence insisted that Jane spent the night with her, pleading that she hadn't yet recovered from her last miscarriage.

Charles went to bed. A few minutes later, he opened his door and cried out for hot water. The maid Mary Anne heard his cry and came to see what was the matter. Bravo's face was hot and sweaty, he shrieked again for hot water, and then opened the window and threw up on the roof. Mary Anne immediately knocked on Florence's door and found Mrs. Cox sitting in a chair calmly knitting. As soon as she was told about Bravo's illness, Mrs. Cox called for coffee and mustard in the hopes of bringing up whatever was making him sick. Bravo threw up again, this time in a basin. Mrs. Cox gave the basin to a servant to wash out. She then sent for Florence's personal physician despite the fact that he was over in Streatham.


Now Florence was awakened by all the commotion. She sprang into action, sending a servant to go out and fetch the nearest doctor, that they couldn't wait for Dr. Harrison, her personal physician to arrive. By this time, Charles Bravo had lost consciousness. Both doctors, once they arrived, came to the same diagnosis, Bravo had been poisoneed but by what they had no idea and the patient wasn't in any shape to help them. Florence suggested that they call Bravo's cousin, Royes Bell, who was also a doctor. When Bell arrived early that morning, he brought along another doctor, Dr. George Johnson. Now awake, Bravo was questioned about what had made him ill. Bravo told them that he had taken laudanum for a tooth ache, and that he may have swallowed some. But his symptons didn't suggest an overdose. This was when Mrs. Cox pulled the doctors aside and told them that Bravo had revealed to her when she first went to him to help, that he had told her, 'I've taken some of that poison; don't tell Florence.' Mrs. Cox admitted that he hadn't told her exactly what poison it was.


The next afternoon, Bravo managed to make out a will, leaving everything to Florence. Doctors questioned him again, but he still stuck to his story, that he had taken laudanum and only laudanum. In the morning of the third day, Dr. Johnson took some fresh vomit with him for analysis. After examining the specimen, Dr. Johnson could find nothing. On Thursday, April 20th, Sir William Gull, Queen Victoria's personal physician showed up after being sent for by Florenec. He had treated her father once. In the meantime, Mrs. Cox had asked Dr. Gully for a homeopathic treatment. Finally, Dr. Henry Smith showed up completing the sextuplet of doctors. After examining him, Sir William Gull was blunt and to the point. Bravo was dying and needed to tell them what had transpired. If he did not speak out, someone might be accused of poisoning him. Once again, Bravo repeated his story about taking the laudanum. More vomit was collected as a specimen to be tested. Finally on Friday morning, April 21st at 5:30 a.m. Bravo died.


The police were ill-equipped to deal with a crime of this nature, in fact it took them 8 days after Bravo's death to question Florence and Mrs. Cox. The majority of the crimes they dealt with involved property theft. And this crime involved the upper classes, most of the police were not used to dealing with their 'betters' as it were. And the upper classes weren't used to being questioned by the police either. Florence's father had been a Justice of the Peace, as well as a High Sheriff. He dismissed the police inquiries by boasting that he could get a verdict of suicide in five minutes. As a preventative measure, he retained the services of Sir Henry James, a one of William Gladstone's closest friends, as a barrister as well as arranging for Queen Victoria's personal physician to give evidence on Florence's behalf. An autopsy showed that Charles had been poisoned by tarter emetic, made from antimony, a rather harsh poison. A dose of more than 4 grains was poisonous, Charles had more than 30 in his stomach. But how would someone slip him the tartar emetic? It could not be tolerated in food or wine. After further research, it was discovered that Charles had been in the habit of drinking water before bed. Tartar emetic could be dissolved into water, making it both soluble and tasteless.


An inquest was held at the Priory after Florence offered it as a venue, providing refreshments for the jury. The coroner took pains to keep unwanted exposure to a minimum, no press was notified and he didn't call Florence as a witness. He saw no reason not to uphold the initial diagnosis that Bravo had committed suicide. However his family protested, his stepfather Joseph Bravo went to the trouble of hiring a Scotland Yard inspector to investigate. It came out that George Griffiths, one of the grooms at the Priory, had been sacked soon after Florence and Charles were married. Not only was he sacked, but there were witnesses who overheard him state that Bravo would not live four months. He had also purchased a quanity of antimony to use on the horses. Florence put up a reward for 500 pounds to anyone who could give information, and on the 2nd of June, both she and Jane Cox gave voluntary statements to their solicitors. Florence detailed Charle's meanness, she also admitted to her relationship with Gully for the first time. Jane Cox, however, changed her statement. She now said that Bravo had told her that "I have taken poison for Gully, don't tell Florence," hinting that Bravo's motive for commmiting suicide was his jealousy of Gully.


The public hue and cry led to a second inquest was held at the Bedford Hotel in Balham. Suspicion soon fell on both Florence Bravo and Jane Cox. Poison has long had a reputation as a women's weapon. The case of Madeleine Smith came to mind, and Lucrezia Borgia (wrongly) had the reputation of using poison on her enemies, the reason being that poison doesn't require any brute strength, and its also convenient. Most households have some form of poison lying around in their kitchens. It's a quick matter of taking that rat poison or in the case Charles Bravo, antimony from the stables. The sickroom was another place to find poisons, particularly in the Victorian era with its plethora of medicines, many of which contained poisons. It would have been very easy to accidentally on purpose give someone an overdose.

Outside the hotel, crowds swelled in the hot summer air, trying to get a glimpse into the proceedings. One of the first witnesses called was the groom George Griffith. Griffith confessed that his famous proclamation that Bravo would be dead in four months came because he had heard that Bravo had been bitten by a dog. His new employer also vouched for his whereabouts. It soon came out that his real motive was collecting the 500 pound reward for evidence.

During the inquest, it was revealed that Dr. Gully and Mrs. Cox had been in contact with each other before Bravo's death. Mrs. Cox explained that they had met at the train station to London quite by accident. During the next several weeks they were seen together in public a total of five times. Mrs. Cox asked Dr. Gully to prescribe a medicine for Florence who was having trouble sleeping. Dr. Gully agreed and suggested that he leave it at her house in Notting Hill for her to pick up. When one of her tenants signed for it, he noticed that the bottle had a small poison label. However, Florence never received the medicine, in fact she hadn't known that Mrs. Cox and the Doctor had been in contact. When the time came to produce the bottle, Mrs. Cox declared that she had thrown it out because Florence hadn't required the medicine after all.


The inquest took 32 days. During that time Florence was questioned repeatedly about her relationship with Dr. Gully. It seemed as if George Lewis cared more about their relationship than Bravo's death. Three times during her testimony, she broke down. At one point, she demanded that the coroner protect her from the intrusive questions asked by Joseph Bravo's solicitor. "I refuse to answer any more questions about Dr. Gully. This inquiry is about the death of my husband, and I appeal to the jury, as men and as Britons, to protect me." Gully too found the questions a bit much but he was better able to control himself. "I don't see the relevance of these questions," he said. Despite the testimony of Florence and Jane Cox, and their own suspicions, the jury had no hard evidence. On Friday, August 11, a verdict was reached. 'We find that Mr. Charles Delauney Turner Bravo did not commit sucide; that he did not meet his death by misadventure; that he was willfully murdered by the administration of tartar emetic; but there is not sufficient evidence to fix the guilt upon any person or persons.'


Florence and Jane Cox were free to go but the second inquest was devastating to Florence. With the press in attendance, there was no way to keep the news of her affair with Gully out of the papers. The public ate up every salacious word. The Saturday Review described it as 'one of the most disgusting public exhibitions which has been witnessed in this generation.' The Evening Standard complained that 'She was a miserable woman who indulged in a disgraceful connection.' And the venerable Times wrote 'She was an adulteress and an inebriate, selfish and self-willed, a a bad daughter and worse wife.' Not only her reputation was besmirched but Gully's as well. All his hard work was nothing compared to the sensationalist news that he had been sleeping with a woman young enough to be his granddaughter. After the inquest was over, Florence's brother William, the only one of her siblings to keep in touch after her family cut off ties with her after the revelation about her affair with Gully, begged her to join the family in Australia to get away, make a fresh start but Florence declined. Her father became ill, devastated by the press, and the effort to protect his daughter. The family business went bankrupt and Buscot Park and all their property abroad had to be sold to pay off the debts. Florence moved to Southsea on the coast, where she drank herself to death, at the age of 33 in 1878. Gully didn't live much longer, he lived with his widowed sisters, estranged from his only daughter, finally dying of in 1883. To this day, his descendants refuse to talk about that period in Gully's life. Mrs. Cox went back to Jamaica to claim the inheritance left to her and her sons by her husband's aunt. She eventually moved back to England, dying in 1913.


Who really did kill Bravo? Was it Florence? And if she did, why? Florence Bravo was unique in Victorian England in that she had more control over her life than most women. She had run her own household, managed her own money. It was she who chose the men in her life, not the other way around. Ricardo was her choice not her father's, and it was she who who initiated the relationship with Gully and then ended it when it suited her purpose. And she also chose to marry Bravo, instead of perhaps going abroad for a few years, until the scandal of her relationship with Gully had perhaps subsided. But even though she had more choices, it didn't necessarily mean that she had the tools to make the right ones. One could almost say that Florence Bravo could be the Victorian poster girl for Smart Women, Foolish Choices. Like Isabel Archer in Henry Jame's masterpiece, Portrait of a Lady, an independent fortune did not keep Florence from making a huge mistake. So is it so far-fetched to come to the conclusion that Florence would choose poison to get rid of her husband?

After one terrible and abusive marriage, Florence was now trapped in another. "I told him that he had no right to treat me in such a way," Florence said in her Treasury statement. Divorce was not an option, it would have effectively ruined her already damaged reputation. Although it no longer required a special act of Parliament, Florence would have had to proven that Bravo committed adultery, not just mental cruelty and abuse. Yes, seperation was a possibility but Florence had already gone through one seperation and Bravo would never have let her go. Her only other option would have been to find someone to act as her legal guardian, which Gully had done for her to facilitate her seperation from Ricardo, but there was no one to step up to the plate this time. Her relationship with her parents had already been damaged by her relationship with Gully, and her father had let her know that he would not support her decision to leave Bravo.

Still was that a reason for murder? Maybe not, but Florence had suffered two devastating miscarriages in five months of marriage, and Bravo was determined to have an heir. Chances were she would not have been able to put off for much longer, even though getting pregnant again could have killed her. Florence had been drinking, it is probable that she had just planned on making Bravo sick, but instead she ended up giving him too much of the antinomy. I don't think that she was thinking clearly at the time, she just wanted it to end. If women suffer from post-partum psychosis, it's not unreasonable to believe, that suffering two miscarriages back to back practically, might not have left her dealing with some form of it.

And perhaps she thought she would get away with it. Charles had hurt his back earlier in the day, how easy it would have been to suggest that he had mixed together too much medicine, claim it was an accident. If he had died quickly, instead of lingering, no one might ever have known. As far as Florence was concerned, it was a matter of either her survival or Bravo's and she chose to her life over his. Florence had the motive, and she had the means. She knew about antimony, and had the access to it. Tartar emetic had been known to be used by women who were trying to curb their husband's drinking. It was entirely possible that Florence had tried this method with her first husband, Alexander Ricardo.

And what of Jane Cox, Florence's devoted companion? Despite the fact that Bravo dearly wanted to fire her, would have that been a motive? James Ruddick suggests in his book Death at the Priory, that Jane Cox already knew that she was due to inherit a fortune from a relative. Why would she have risked killing Bravo when financial independence was right around the corner?
Still it is clear that Jane Cox's actions the night that Bravo took ill suggest that she suspected that Florence might have poisoned him, or Florence had confessed to her what she had done. She threw out the rest of the water in the jug and rinsed it out, she had the vomit on the roof cleaned up, had Bravo's bloodstained nightshirt removed and burned, it was she who told the Doctors and the police that Bravo had said that he had tried to commit suicide.

There are other theories, in the television program, A Most Mysterious Murder, writer and actor Julian Fellowes put forth the theory that Charles took the antimony by accident, that the bottles of laudanum and antimony looked a great deal alike. Other writers suspected that Gully was the culprit? But what would have been his motive? He was resigned to the fact that his relationship with Florence was over, she hadn't confided in him about her relationship with Bravo, and if he had poisoned Bravo, he wouldn't have chosen antimony. As a medical doctor, he would have known far more effective ways to poison Bravo.

The story of Florence Bravo and the Balham Mystery is another illustration of the constraints that Victorian women labored under. For many women, marriage turned into little better than a prison sentence. Women were expected to endure no matter what, whether the marriage was abusive, constant pregnancies year after year. Even upper class women had little recourse, there were no battered women's shelters, most Victorian fathers would have insisted like Florence's, that she make the best of it. Florence Bravo, if she indeed murdered Bravo, unlike her Victorian sisters was not about to stand by and let another man continue to abuse her. Her sex was also what saved her from being charged with murder. The police, the coroner, the lawyers, and the jury, despite feeling that Florence was perhaps guilty, were reluctant to condemn an upper class woman to the gallows or to long-term imprisonment. But Florence paid a heavy price for her actions. The years of abuse and guilt lead to her turning to drink, the same that killed her first husband, and her death.



Sources include: Wikipedia

Death at the Priory: Love, Sex and Murder in Victorian England - James Ruddick
Victorian Murderesses - Mary S. Hartman
Victorian Sensation - Michael Diamond
Murder Casebook No. 107 : Traces of Poison

TV:
A Most Mysterious Murder: The Case of Charles Bravo