A while ago a questionnaire was doing the rounds on Tumblr. Followers were supposed to submit the name of a historical figure, and the blogger would answer the questions on the questionnaire with that figure in mind. I did a few of these, but my favourite was obviously my response to the name of John, 2nd Earl of Chatham (no prizes for guessing why). My response is below.
So this one is a bit of a gift đ (and I imagine ardentpittite knew that). I could let the blog speak for itself but that would pass up an opportunity to gush about Johnâ so buckle up folks, âcause I canât stop myself. đ
Why I like him
John and I are accidental buddies. Like most people I encountered him through his brother, and it was only after I started researching him in his own right that I realised he was actually pretty cool too. He could have been so jealous of his younger brother, but he wasnât. His was a supporting role and he accepted it entirely. It probably suited his character but it still takes strength.
He was terribly maligned and it didnât help that every time he tried to distinguish himself he got slapped down because of who he was (sent to Quebec, then called back because his father disagreed with the American war â check. Called to the Cabinet, then demoted because his brother wanted to keep the other departments sweet â check. Prevented again and again from actually doing anything remotely dangerous with the army because his brother was his heir and didnât fancy going to the House of Lords â check, check, check, check, checkâŚ)
He was also (sorry anoondayeclipse) by far the most handsome member of the family. *wipes brow*
Why I donât
Letâs face it, the âLate Lord Chathamâ sobriquet was not entirely undeserved. He was addicted to his lie-ins, he hardly ever turned up anywhere on time and I get the impression he was a rubbish correspondent. He could also be petty and snide. And his political opinions âŚÂ ! I know I shouldnât let it bother meâ he was a man of his time and all thatâ but he was much more conservative than his brother. Anti abolition of the slave trade, anti parliamentary reform, anti Catholic emancipation, anti, well, everything. And his opinions on how to deal with insurrectionary Ireland in 1798 frankly make my hair stand on end. But as with his brother, I donât have to agree with him to like him.
Favourite anecdote
Probably the occasion I blogged about in the past when John turned up at half past four to an official Court function that started at noon, thus completely living up to his name and reputation đ . In his defence he wasnât well at the time.
Favourite quotation
John had a noticeable lack of a sense of humour in contrast to his brother William, but when he did make jokes they were dry and rather sarcastic. My favourite is reported by his sister Harriot (itâs printed in her Letters, edited by Cuthbert Headlam): he referred to rumours of forthcoming society marriages and pairings as âStock Jobbing Reportsâ. Love it.
The quotation that completely breaks my heart and then stamps on all the pieces, though, is the letter from John to Earl Camden, 7 August 1796 (Kent RO Camden MSS CKS-U840/254/4) in which John lets out his bitterness at being sacked from the Admiralty in 1794. It was the letter that first convinced me Johnâs side of the story might be worth telling: âThe mischief done me, is irreparable, and tho my Brother, whenever he gives himself time to reflect, must (if he possesses any of the feelings wich I always believed him to have) regret the step into which he was surprised, he can never set it rightâ. *sobs*
BrOTP
John and the 4th Duke of Rutland. Well obviously.
OTP
John seems to have been one of those strange 18th century creatures: an aristocrat in love with his own wife. Lady Hester Stanhopeâs memoirs may have made reference to a âmistressâ, but I have never found evidence of one. I may be wrong but it seems to me John and his wife were rarely apart. So John-Mary. Works for me.
Oh-God-why-did-that-have-to-happen
Walcheren. I donât think I need to elaborate. If I do ⌠google it. Iâm saying nothing.
And if Walcheren had to happen ⌠WHY, WHY, WHY did John have to submit âthat wretched memorandumâ (Spencer Percevalâs words, Iâd use stronger ones) to the King first? Really, John, you werenât stupid, but I really wonder what you were thinking.
Unpopular opinion
I think pretty much everything I think about John goes against the grain. He was his own enemy 99% of the time, but he was so thoroughly shafted by everyone he stood no chance. Yes, I realise some would say (and some have said⌠David Andress Iâm looking at you) he had a pretty cushy time coasting on his brotherâs influence. They are not entirely wrong of course, but I reckon John had enough pride to disagree.
It doesnât help that his executors possibly went through his papers and kept the most random bits and bobs imaginable from them; either that or John sorted through them himself. Johnâs portion of the National Archives Chatham Papers is, basically: loads of household bills from 1834-5 that his heirs needed to settle his outstanding accounts after his death; several huge folios full of correspondence, notes and memoranda on Walcheren and the aftermath; lots of stuff from the Admiralty from 1793-4, which I have a hunch John kept for a reason that I wonât go into here; and uhm, a scattering of letters from friends and family, mainly 1780s-1790s. That is literally it.
What I am saying here is that my âunpopular opinionâ is that he is actually worth anyoneâs time of day.
A wish
That he and Mary had managed to sprog. There were miscarriages. *sobs anew*
My nickname for him
I have called him âJohnâ throughout and have no intention of stopping. Anyone who has a problem with this can get stuffed.
Five words that best describe him
Clever, lazy, elegant, serious, maligned.
If I could say one thing to him
Should Castlereagh ever suggest the command of an amphibious expedition to Antwerp ⌠just say no.
Favourite portrayal
George Romneyâs portrait of John will for ever give me naughty thoughts. I donât seem to be able to add photos to this, nor can I in any case for copyright reasons. Second place belongs to my avatar, the detail of Johnâs face from Sir George Hayterâs Trial of Queen Caroline (1823):
Yes, John is in his mid to late 60s in that painting. He aged well.
Least favourite portrayal
Sir Tresham Lever, The House of Pitt (1947). âStupidâ and âuselessâ?! Please.