Lives of the Queens of England of the House of Hanover, volume 1 (of 2)Doran, Dr. (John)
History
Lives of the Queens of England of the House of Hanover, volume 1 (of 2)
Doran, Dr. (John)
Hanover, House of; Queens -- Great Britain -- Biography
It may be here noticed that Shakspeare owed some of his reputation, at
this time, to the dissensions which existed between the King and his
son. Had it, at least, not been for this circumstance, it is not likely
that the play of ‘Henry IV.’ would have been so often represented as
it was at the three theatres--Lincoln’s-Inn-Fields, Covent Garden,
and Drury Lane. Every auditor knew how to make special application
of the complainings and sorrowings of a royal sire over a somewhat
profligate son; or of the unfilial speeches and hypocritical assurance
of a princely heir, flung at his Sovereign and impatient sire. The
house in Lincoln’s-Inn-Fields had the reputation of being the Tory
house; and the Prince of Wales _there_ was probably represented as a
proper gentleman; not out of love to _him_, but rather out of contempt
to the father. It was not a house which received the favour of either
Caroline or her consort. The new pieces there ran too strongly against
the despotic rule of kings--the only sort of rule for which George
at all cared, and the lack of which made him constantly abusive of
England, her institutions, parliament, and public men. It is difficult
to say what the real opinion of Caroline was upon this matter, for at
divers times we find her uttering opposite sentiments. She could be as
abusive against free institutions and civil and religious rights as
ever her husband was. She has been heard to declare that sovereignty
was worth little where it was merely nominal, and that to be king or
queen in a country where people governed through their parliament was
to wear a crown and to exercise none of the prerogatives which are
ordinarily attached to it. At other times she would declare that the
real glory of England was the result of her free institutions; the
people were industrious and enterprising because they were free, and
knew that their property was secure from any attack on the part of
prince or government. They consequently regarded their sovereign with
more affection than a despotic monarch could be regarded by a slavish
people; and she added, that she would not have cared to share a throne
in England, if the people by whom it was surrounded had been slaves
without a will of their own, or without a heart that throbbed at the
name of liberty. The King never had but one opinion on the subject, and
_therefore_ the theatre at Lincoln’s-Inn-Fields was for ever resounding
with clap-traps against despotism, and _that_ in presence of an
audience of whom Frederick, Prince of Wales, was chief, and Bolingbroke
led the applause.
But even Drury Lane could be as democratic as Lincoln’s Inn. Thus,
in the very year of which we are treating, Lillo brought out his
‘Christian Hero’ at Drury Lane, and the audience had as little
difficulty to apply the parts to living potentates as they had
reluctance to applaud to the echo passages like the following against
despotic rulers:--
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account