Book Review: Georgiana: Duchess of Devonshire, by Amanda Foreman

[olde_fashioned]

I think my fondness for the 18th century is no secret to any of my regular readers. ;-) So you may imagine my surprise and delight upon discovering a copy of Amanda Foreman’s Georgiana: Duchess of Devonshire biography at a used bookstore entirely by accident! Having already seen the movie The Duchess, which was inspired by this biography, previously read about the author during production of said film, and recalling recommendations of a trusted friend, I went ahead and bought the book even though I’m not generally one to tackle biographies. (I know, I know; that’s a fault on my part which I’m working at remedying!) Considering my love of history, this is somewhat strange, but most of the biographies (or possibly the authors?) I’ve encountered previously have been dull, dry, and even pretentious, but thankfully Amanda Foreman and her work both proved to be quite the opposite.

As this is only my first real foray into studying the life of Georgiana Cavendish, famous 18th century socialite, aristocrat, figure of fashion and leader of the ton, authoress, political heavyweight and Whig doyenne, I am by no means the best person to judge Foreman’s adherence to historical truths, but since this is one of my very favourite periods in history (if not the favourite, hee hee), I’m already somewhat familiar with the era and therefore (hopefully!), not entirely ignorant. ;-)


Encompassing the life of Georgiana Spencer (yes, those Spencers; Georgiana is distant relation of of the late Diana, Princess of Wales) in detailed chapters broken down by date as well as historically significant events, Foreman seems to have taken extreme pains to decipher what is left of Georgiana’s correspondance, archived mostly at Chatsworth House. While it seems that a great deal of her enormous legacy of letters has been preserved, some of the most controversial (and hence, most interesting) letters have lamentably been destroyed. (Somehow I can never quite forgive those who have undertaken to preserve their own selfish ideals of “reputation” by destroying items of historical value -- Cassandra Austen, I’m lookin’ at you!!) As a rule Amanda Foreman points out the lack of historical evidence (i.e., blacked out letters--oh, the CRIMES COMMITTED BY DESCENDENTS!!!!), instead leaving the reader to decide or surmise on what may have transpired, rather than claiming knowledge which none living can possess (a huge pet-peeve of mine when it comes to history).

The book begins following Georgiana beginning around her early marriage to William Cavendish, 5th Duke of Devonshire, then grows almost alongside the naive Georgiana to encompass her social successes, rise as a beacon of fashion, her unconventional relationships, addiction to gambling, and most importantly, her influence as a political figure.

One of the most noteworthy attributes of this biography is that Amanda Foreman manages to make politics (the massively difficult and vastly confusing maze of 18th century English politics, especially!) incredibly engrossing instead of dreadfully boring. It’s all too easy to get caught up in the methodology, the doings and the hows, and in so doing, forgetting the whys and the whos. This author shows us the people behind the politics, their foibles and flaws, their failures, and their successes.

Georgiana lived during an extremely influential and tumultuous time; her rise to fame coincides with the beginning of the American Revolution, she saw “the madness of King George” through its many episodes, and very nearly got caught up in a few European revolutions, including what would later become the bloody Reign of Terror in France. Another aspect appearing heavily in both Georgiana’s life and the book, are the figures of her close friend and beloved leader of her beloved Whig party: Fox, Pitt (the political enemy of all Whigs), her former lover and future Prime Minister Charles Grey, and of course, King George III, and his son the Prince of Wales, for whom the Regency is named.

If any of you have even a little knowledge of Georgiana, or have at the very least seen the recent film starring Kiera Knightley, then you have a basic understanding of her earlier years. Basic, but only in the crudest form; for the movie horribly butchers Georgiana’s life, and the worst example, as far as I am concerned, is how it slanders the character of her husband, the Duke of Devonshire. Let me explain.

In the movie you may recall the Duke’s almost dastardly treatment of his wife; I will be spare in describing certain “events” surrounding their, ahem, conjugal relations, but from what Amanda Foreman delineates in her work, there is no evidence whatsoever to justify portraying such horrific atrocities like those that the movie mercilessly throws at the viewer. Throughout Georgiana’s letters, she speaks highly and affectionately of her husband, and while while he was certainly no saint, and this praise might be taken with a grain of salt (especially considering attitudes of the time towards women and their non-legal status as a husband's "property"), I however find it hard to believe that Georgiana would have persisted in a false representation of him if he was a monster inclined to force himself on his wife.

The Duke was generally respected and admired by his friends and “the Devonshire House circle,” valued as an expert on Shakespeare, and while he had quite a handful of mistresses and affairs, this was (unfortunately) considered normal in 18th century society. While I personally loathe such conduct, it's unfair to judge people in the past by modern standards, although I still object on moral grounds. Instead I think it would be fair to say that it was more the rule than the exception for a well-established English gentleman/aristocrat to indulge in “indiscretions” or even keep a mistress, often resulting in illegitimate children who sadly, suffered the most from their parents‘ sins, often being shunned and ostracized from no fault of their own other than being unwanted, and born of sinful relations. The Duke introduces one of his own illegitimate children to his new bride very early in their marriage after the girl’s mother dies, and it is to Georgiana’s credit that she mothered and grew to love the child as her own.

Later, when Georgiana too, has an affair (with Charles Grey, future Prime Minister and later 2nd Earl Grey, and yes, that‘s the tea guy), that also results in a child, her husband the Duke sends her briefly into exile, and demands that she choose between the product of her sin, or their three legitimate children. Georgiana chose to sacrifice the one to save the three, and while it’s tempting to condemn her for it, I pity her more. Despite this Georgiana was apparently a devoted and adoring mother; she insisted on breast-feeding her own children in an era when wet-nurses were common practice.

Perhaps the most controversial element of Georgiana’s life is her relationship with Lady Elizabeth Foster. In a nutshell, Georgiana, Lady Elizabeth (Bess), and the Duke had what can only be described as a very bizarre and unhealthy relationship. The two women, it seems, began as close friends, and upon Georgiana’s introducing Bess to the Duke, it wasn’t long before Bess was sleeping with Georgiana’s husband.

The film The Duchess chooses to imply (rather unnecessarily, I might add) a lesbian relationship between Bess and Georgiana; while surely the potential existence of such a relationship begs thought and discussion, there are no letters surviving to prove this, and the fact remains, as Amanda Foreman put it, that both women were previously, and hereafter, always remained heterosexual. I applaud Foreman for refusing to color a situation rife with circumstances insinuating which, if true, would be a politically-correct and homosexual advocate's dream. Whether or not there was anything beyond “husband sharing” and an extremely strange friendship between the two women can never be known, but it is to the author’s credit for simply stating that we cannot know, instead of “creating” facts where there are none surviving. We do know that both women were professedly fond of each other, that they both had children by the Duke, and that the threesome lived under the same roof. I am more inclined to believe that on Bess’s part, it began as a selfish desire to flee from a bad marriage and ingratiate herself with one of (if not the) most fashionable woman in London, and her powerful Duke, and on Georgiana’s part, a close friendship quickly grew into emotional dependency, transferred from her emotionally abusive mother, Lady Spencer (whom I quite frankly can’t stand).

Georgiana remained fond of Bess for the rest of her life, and Bess, it also seems, grew genuinely fond of Georgiana in return; most likely stemming from a lack of any true friends of her own, and the assuredly moving knowledge that she was loved for who she was, faults, adulteries, illegitimate children and all. Georgiana not only tolerated, but encouraged the ménage à trois, and both women went to bat for the other on more than one occasion.

Later, after Georgiana's death, the Duke married Bess (either I forgot or I never knew this), and quite frankly, it made me mad to read that such a conniving, manipulative, and pretentious woman should ever even presume replace someone who by all accounts was sweet, kind, generous, and loving. I can only imagine how Georgiana's children felt.

Another element of the book that pleased me extremely was the knowledge that Whigs were very vocal in their support for our War for Independence (there was no love lost between the Whigs and King George III). All too often we see historical groups and peoples tarred with the same brush, so it was a refreshing concept to see touched upon.

One of the few objections I had with Amanda Foreman’s research was her lack of deference paid to the novelist Frances “Fanny” Burney‘s contribution to our surviving knowledge of King George III’s illness. Fanny was “Second Keeper of the Robes” to Queen Charlotte, and thus was in a prime position to observe the goings-on during “the Regency crisis.” I knew from previous readings that Fanny’s diaries are oft-cited resources for historians, so Amanda Foreman’s “suggestion” that Georgiana’s letters describing the king’s “fits” in great detail were the most valuable sources available bothered me a little. I would have been happier had she at least mentioned Fanny Burney’s contribution, but this is perhaps a small matter, and I am probably a little biased. ;-)

I did not intend to start reading this book almost immediately after bringing it home, but somehow I picked it up to pass a few idle moments, and was hooked. This is perhaps testament to the author’s skill, and the fascinating time period (and person) she chose for her biography. Foreman writes with an almost novel-like style, carefully arranging the facts nearly always in chronological order, only occasionally dropping historical “spoilers” and referencing events that give the reader a glimpse into the future of Georgiana’s life. Foreshadowing is a tool Foreman relies on heavily; lots of “menacing” events loom on the horizons at the end of each chapter, and Georgiana’s historical significance is routinely expounded upon. The author is self-admittedly “a little in love” with Georgiana herself, and while I can certainly understand the magnetic draw of such a fascinating and admittedly captivating historical figure, it is surely best to keep a shaker nearby in case any grains of salt are required.

If the 18th century, history of politics, or influential women in history are at all "your thing," then I would definitely recommend this. ;-)

This review is by no means an attempt to be exhaustive, nor a summary of all the events covered in the book, and I certainly did not set out to make it so long! Give yourself a pat on the back if you’ve made it thus far and as always, thank you for reading! :-D