McDonald 1
Shannon McDonald
Dr. Lindenauer
Introduction to History
May 3, 2011
Gendered Expectations
There is a sketch of Georgiana Cavendish from 1784; she is sitting in a saloon seated comfortably like a man in britches would having a man shave her beard. The name of the sketch is Political Shaver[1]. This is the typical political satire that plagued Georgiana and promoted her negative image throughout the Westminster Election of 1784 due to her unwomanly and improper approach to canvassing for Whig Party member Charles James Fox. The Westminster Election of 1784 was a unique election for eighteenth century England as it was highly spirited and full of scandal. Charles James Fox, was radically campaigning as a ‘Man of the People’, while his opponent William Pitt of the Tory party kept with tradition by supporting the crown. With two drastically different standpoints it would be no surprise this was the grounds for the scandalous campaign, but it was Georgiana’s approach that brought about scandal and outrage. She canvassed heavily for Fox even though he was not a family member of hers, a rarity for a prestigious woman in the eighteenth century. The manner of canvassing was usually at a prestigious event or hosting a smaller function such as dinner or tea to gain political ties. Thus the Duchess’ approach to political campaigning included more than the norm which left the media mocking her sexuality, femininity and social behavior.
The Duchess’ canvassing included time away from home used to solicit votes for Charles James Fox. Not only was it improper for the Duchess to talk to commoners like they were her peers but she was highly criticized for leaving home and momentarily dismissing the duty of producing an heir, which she had failed to do so far. To the general public and the cynical media, she appeared irresponsible, and morally loose.
The Duchess was often described as a charismatic character of the ton. [2] Notorious for her gambling and staying up late with the boys for drinks, she further stepped out of her gender role by taking on an extremely active role in the campaign that was commonly associated with men. She added her personality to the campaign rather than just creating political ties for Fox. While the lower-class enjoyed her fresh personality and availability to talk to them personally, the upper-class and media snubbed their noses at her actions that tarnished the prestige and propriety of the women in the ton.
The ridicule discouraged to the Duchess but her personality aimed to please and her social role as a woman remained intact regardless of media’s portrayal. While her canvassing was a bit more extreme in regards to other women in her era it was not earth-shattering, merely an offensive act that her social group and the media disapproved of and found entertainment in. However, it was not a surprise that she was more active in the election than most women as the Duchess was an influential and charismatic leading ladyof the ton. She was a fresh face compared to the stiff and prudish family she had married into.[3] Everywhere the Duchess went she brought her own personality.
Georgiana was an example of moderate deviance in the eighteenth century yet was often portrayed as revolutionary or a great trespasser in the political satire and memories from the late eighteenth century. It is significant that her ostracizedpolitical involvement was not as innovative as portrayed because the idea that she was ground-breaking did not hold true to her genuine character. She was a woman of her time and it is important to understand her in her own context rather than the media’s point of views as well as the opinions of others. Although Georgiana Cavendish encountered great ridicule during the Westminster Election of 1784 because she deviated from her expected social and gender roles, evidence concerning different episodes in her life as well as common political practices of the late eighteenth century suggests that her deviance was not as revolutionary as media portrayed it.
This paper will unearth different reasons why Georgiana, the Duchess of Devonshire, was the recipient of such harsh ridicule during the Westminster Election of 1784. It will look into gender roles applied to women in England in the late eighteenth century as well as decipher expected gender roles based on social status. All attempts will be made to keep Georgiana in her own context rather than a contemporary viewpoint. The question of media’s influence on society will be posed. Because Georgiana was in the public eye, she was the target of gossip, but how much of it proved true and how did she deal with it? Overall, this paper will question social and gender roles of the eighteenth centuryin attempts to expose the rationale for opinions about the upper-class in regards to Georgiana’s participation in the Westminster Election of 1784.
Phyllis Deutsch’s Moral Trespass in Georgian London: Gaming, Gender, and Electoral Politics in the Age of George III addresses the growing emphasis on private morals and virtues in Georgian London that were significant during the Westminster election of 1794.Lavish gaming habits of both upper-class men and women were frowned upon. She explains that the late Eighteenth Century was a time of political awareness in London and by the late eighteenth century, “The drama, exclusivity and emotionally of aristocratic play had come to exemplify the private vice and public irresponsibility of the ruling class”[4]. The people of Great Britain were skeptical of who truly deserved their trust and who did not based on their frivolity or frugal lifestyles. She addresses that Charles James Fox, Whig candidate running for office in the election was a gamester, thus his vigorous and lavish habit of gambling often meant he, “lacked the ready cash or capital to back their habit”[5]. Thus, in a time when morals and virtue became so significant, who would want a man unreliable with his own money to make choices with their nation’s money?
Along with moral trespasses, Fox was associating himself with what was considered a woman’s hobby which further tarnished his image as a strong and reliable man. Furthermore, Georgiana, Duchess of Devonshire, known for her trivial gaming ways, fervently supported Fox. Deutsch explicates that Georgiana’s passionate support of Fox led to greater ridicule of Fox because he was being, “Unmanned by corrupt female influence” and that, “Fox, Relinquishing self-control and personal responsibility at the gaming table, compromised his claim to masculinity and its public, political benefits.”[6] The author further claims that the late eighteenth century saw correlation between gamestresses, prostitutes and public political women, two of three descriptions Georgiana, Fox’s closest associate in the Election of 1784, exemplified. As a result, in an era where morality was the key to public approval, Fox did not possess the attributes the public craved. Moreover, as Fox lost his masculinity and approval, Georgiana lost her femininity as she was branded masculine in regards to her fervent and manly canvassing. Deutsch speculates that although Fox won the election, that this swap of gender roles and general humiliation in regards to the tarnishing of his name and party during the campaign led him to only join in on politics sporadically after. As for Georgiana, Deutsch explains, she left the forefront of politics and was forever remembered for her misconduct and immorality in regards to stepping out of place as an upper-class woman in the Westminster Election of 1784 due to political satire.
The authors approach on the Georgian Era’s growing emphasis on morality and virtues of the upper-class explains why Georgiana was subject to great ridicule. Georgiana’sgenerous gaming habits and minor gender and social role discrepancies were emphasized much greater because they were magnified in 1784. Deutsch’s speculation that Georgiana had an abrupt end to her political participation after the election appears to be a half truth. Considering Georgiana was a Duchess, her husband would be involved with politics for the rest of his life. His involvement meant she would be connected with politics to some degree. She may have pulled back the emphasis on her political involvement after her scandalous contribution during the election but certainly would still have some associations in the British political sphere.
Amelia Rauser’s“The Butcher Kissing Duchess of Devonshire: Between Caricature and Allegory in 1784” further addresses the medias attack against Georgiana’s trespass as an upper-class woman in the Eighteenth Century regarding the Westminster Election. Rauser examines the public outcry by means of pamphlets, essays, prints and ballads that, “debated the Duchess’s virtues and improprieties”[7]. Her main focus is on a wide array of political satire from the election that shows the Duchess kissing the lower social class butchers as she canvasses votes for Charles James Fox. She acknowledges that the political atmosphere was changing and that private morality and virtue were important aspects of candidates in the 1784 election. Thus, Georgiana’s out going role in canvassing for Fox was ridiculed because she was not seen as virtuous with her extravagant gaming and alcohol intake and a publicized political life similar to men. Rausersuggests that the Foxites[8] formally prominent in the English political world were attempting to win votes by illustrating that they were, “The choice of the people and were opposed to the despotism of the monarch.”[9] The author addresses the idea that Fox’scampaign that claimed him a“man of the people” made Georgiana the woman of the people, in other words, a prostitute. Images sketched of Georgiana kissing butchers, lower class men, expressed that she was sexually open to people; an immoral person in the time of great emphasis on morality. A commentator of her time, William Combe, handled the Duchess’ frivolity with gaming and ardent political stance by claiming, “[She was] not acting more like the examplar of feminine virtue that she could have been to British public.” He further admonished, “[She is] the example of Female Error which are a glaring disgrace to the times wherein we live in.”[10] The author explains that people such as Combe and the general public held the fear of, “female influence” much stronger than the fear of monarchial influence that Fox was originally counting on to lead him to victory.
Rauser examines political satire of the Duchess taking on a masculine and immoral role claiming, “In fondling the butcher, the Duchess of Devonshire is not only a sexual aggressor but is made sexually available herself.”[11] The satire regarding the Duchess exemplified that she had crossed the line of appropriateness for a woman of her class. Rauser claims that like a woman of the Eighteenth Century, amidst all the ridicule, Georgiana, the Duchess of Devonshire, retreated from politics after the Westminster Election of 1784 without challenging the public. Although the Duchess retreated, Rauser acknowledges that not until years later would women become as involved in politics as the Duchess had in 1784. Accordingly, the Duchess was a woman of her time by means of retreating from the political world without a fight. While she left an impact that would inspire more contemporary women with her intense passion and involvement in politics, she herself was by no means as radical as the media had portrayed.
Likewise, Amanda Foreman’s interpretation of the Duchess’ ridicule throughout the Westminster Election addresses that Georgiana was not necessarily a revolutionary figure of her era because in many ways she still acted as women of her time. However Foreman states that Georgiana undeniably overstepped several boundaries of upper-class women and could be viewed as innovative today. Foreman shatters the misconception that there was a taboo on female participation in politics explaining there was only an immense amount of hypocrisy and double standards. Upper-class women actually supported family members who were campaigning because if men directly involved with the operation did it was interference. Foreman explains that one reason for the Duchess’ ridicule was that, “She brought her own Personality to the campaign in an era where the only women who had public personas were actresses and courtesans” and, “She had appeared as herself and not as a sacrifice to female duty.”[12] Thus, while women had obligations to campaigns, the Duchess, neither a family member, actress or courtesan took part in something the public or her tight knit upper class group did not expect her to.
Images of the Duchess kissing lower class men, displaying masculine features and performing sexual acts demonstrate the nature of the Duchess’ ridicule. People were unhappy because the Duchess appeared to overstep boundaries therefore; they attacked her with the greatest insults of her time, sexually open, masculine and unaware of her place in society. Foreman explicates that although, “Georgiana was exhausted and demoralized” as well as, “…a source of much coarse humor in the press” she carried on with her canvassing and did not challenge the public about the satire and ridicule. A contemporary view of Georgiana, the Duchess of Devonshire, would indicate that she did not care what people thought, she was independent and would do as she pleased. Foreman explains that in reality Georgiana’s personality aimed to please.[13]Consequently, Georgiana continued to canvass in attempts to please her husband’s family, the Cavendish’s.[14]Moreover, a respectable married lady of the eighteenth century in London was expected to follow through with her commitments to maintain respectability of her spouses’ families’ name.
Foreman’s depictionof Georgiana as a woman of her era puts the true personality of her to the forefront. She may have overstepped a few boundaries but it was really the media that created her into an extreme deviant. The author’s method of presenting Georgiana for who she truly was, brings sincerity and likeable qualities. While it is obvious that the author appreciates Georgiana and wants to do justice for her, her use of correspondence between Georgiana and her mother is truthful and reveals her good qualities as well as her faults.
Elaine Chalus’, “Elite Women, Social Politics, and the Political World of Late-Eighteenth Century England” touches on the idea that women were involved in English Politics in a less direct way than historians typically look at it. She explains that women often saw themselves and were seen by men in their circles as, “Functioning members of a political world where social situations were frequently used for political ends. For example, women would often host tea’s and gradually move on to dinners to initiate contact with men their husbands wished to conspire with in their political campaigns and gains. Chalus, also explores the idea that since many historians do not place emphasis on what women’s role was in politics and more on how they changed politics overtime, “devalues those aspects of women’s political involvement which are not immediately direct or quantifiable”[15] She dismisses the concept that she feels too many historians take on about ridicule in regards to female participation in politics explaining, “The rise of polite society encouraged more mingling of the sexes in a wider range of social activities and in a correspondingly expanding variety of social venues.”[16] Thus, the conclusion Chalus comes to suggests that Georgiana’s canvassing was not quite the scandalous situation the media portrayed, she was merely a public figure that was mocked.
The political satire that was ever present during Georgiana’s participation in the Westminster Election of 1794 gives a direct look into the general public’s opinion of her and members of the tonat the time. It is clear with the sheer ridicule Georgiana faces in these sketches that her zealous action in the campaign was unwelcomed and deemed unfit to her gender and social class. While these images depicted extreme deviance, one could easily find images of ridicule relating to Georgiana and other women of the time that attacked them for extravagance. Since satire was readily available on any upper-class figure of Europe in the late eighteenth century it suggests that Georgiana was just another victim of the media.
Georgiana’s public displays of affection for the butchers, the lower working class, of England are portrayed in multiple sketches that were made popular throughout the Westminster campaign when she fervently canvassed for Fox. In the sketch titled, “A Certain Duchess Kissing Old Swelter-in-Grease Butcher for his Vote”, the Duchess is scandalously close to a man unfit to her social class. She is kissing him in his butcher shop as his arms are wrapped around her in a disreputable embrace. In another sketch, “Female Influence”[17] she along with other upper-class ladies is offering kisses for a vote in favor of Fox. As a woman of the ton she was expected to communicate with men within the elite group and only communicate with those beneath her social status if they were attending to her. Thus, placing her in the butchers shop, somewhere were many Duchess’ or even member of the ton would not dare to go and participating in an intimate moment with the lower class was an insult. It suggested that the Duchess did not understand her place and went too far in political affairs. This was often the attitude to the Duchess’ participation in the election.