In celebration of the tercentenary of the ascension of George I to the throne of Britain, Historic Royal Palaces have staged a season of events at their properties. The story of George I is being played out at Hampton Court Palace, George II’s at Kensington Palace and George III’s at Kew. On the face of it, it seems a great idea – the intrepid explorer of all things 18th century could make a pilgrimage from one historic palace to another, tracing the story of the Hanoverian dynasty in the places where each monarch felt most comfortable. Sadly, the reality of the experience left something to be desired.
For those running historic venues, there is a perennially difficult balancing act. How, in the name of ‘inclusion’ do you pitch the level of your exhibitions? Do you assume no knowledge whatsoever of the period or people in question? Or do you take a more scholarly attitude, seek to illuminate beyond the level of basic knowledge and cover aspects that are little known? Curators are also faced with the requirement to make a historic venue accessible to its child visitors and to try and spark an interest in history amongst young people, without disrupting the experience for adult visitors. At the ‘Glorious Georges’ I felt that curators had decided to appeal to as broad a range of visitors as possible, which inevitably meant that an aficionado was left feeling somewhat short-changed.
I wanted to explore how the exhibitions catered to their different audiences and therefore visited all three venues with a self-proclaimed ‘amateur’ whose knowledge of the 18th century is based on gin-consumption and large hairstyles, henceforth known as Mr R. I also made a second visit to Hampton Court with a mini-Critick, the eight-year old child of a friend, Miss C. I was particularly interested in the re-enactments that were advertised as an integral part of the exhibition. Hampton Court especially is well-known for its use of costumed actors, who take the roles of the historical personages depicted in its exhibition space. Such re-enactment is one of the ways in which Historic Royal Palaces attempts to bridge the gap between its very eclectic visitor pools.
Our first trip therefore was to Hampton Court on the late-May Bank Holiday, to visit a recreation of the court of George I in 1717. The focus of this exhibition was on the feud between George I and the Prince of Wales, caused in part by the ‘Christening Affair’ of 1717 when George I proclaimed the Duke of Newcastle godfather to the Prince of Wales’s new baby son, without consulting his heir. This led to a vicious argument between father and son and ended with the Prince being banished from court and separated from his child. His banishment made the Prince’s residence at Leicester House the focus of opposition to the King as disaffected or overlooked politicians congregated there with the Prince.
As a frequent visitor to Hampton Court, the Queen’s State Apartments were not new to me and I was eager to see how the space was being used for the Glorious Georges. The visitor was guided through different rooms by use of an olfactory map, with different smells for different rooms. In the first room, visitors were also invited to choose a wristband, to indicate their support for either George I or his son, the Prince of Wales, something that I thought might be a little hard for someone not at all familiar with the period or the details of the many family feuds that affected the Hanoverian dynasty. Sure enough, Mr R hesitated over his choice, in the end asking which one he should choose.
The display of information in the state apartments was fairly minimal, and focused on life at the Royal court and its main personalities. Much of it was given on life-size models with dresses and suits made from paper, with biographical details attached to the waistcoats or dress front panel. Displayed in this way were well-known court characters such as Mesuline von der Schulenberg , nicknamed ‘the maypole’ and mistress to George I along with Sophia von Kielmansegg, nicknamed ‘the elephant’ and morganatic half-sister to George I. British courtiers such as Mary Lepel and the Earl of Rochester were also featured. The focus was very much on people of the court with little reference to political figures, a surprising omission given the political upheaval of George’s ascension and the gradual shifting of political power from court to government during this period. The paper effigies, although creative, looked somewhat out of place in the sumptuous surroundings and I feel that real or reproduction costumes would have been more in keeping and more educational.
In the state dining room, George I was eating alone and we, temporary members of the court were able to watch and converse with him if we so chose. His English was (predictably) appalling with a thick German accent. I spoke to some passing courtiers, attempting to immerse myself in the period. I found them generally to be well-versed in the history of the period but somewhat limited when it came to the particularities of the exhibition. My attempts to ask about Jacobite tensions for example, were met by somewhat blank faces. Visitors were then able to play period games, such as hazard and brag, on gaming tables in the drawing room, whilst interacting with the courtiers, who would take their places at the game if you chose. Having played brag with a female courtier, I thought that her appetite for gaming was certainly typical of the period! During the games, we witnessed an argument between the King and his son over the christening affair. The argument – carried out in suitably accented English – was engrossing.
Overall Hampton Court was an excellent start to our tour. From a personal point of view, the interaction with the ‘courtiers’ was interesting and enabled someone with a grasp of the period to indulge in period conversation and repartee – several of the courtiers were razor-sharp in their wit, and so provided some amusing banter. Whilst playing brag, had it not been for the paper effigies in the corner, I could easily have imagined myself in 1717. Mr R felt that he had learnt a little of court life from the overall experience, but not obtained a good grasp of the historical events, which were somewhat neglected.
Our return visit to Hampton Court was in August, this time with Miss C in tow. She was interested in the ‘smell’ map and enjoyed playing games, but was too shy to interact with the courtiers, who failed to engage her. Hampton Court did make a real effort to provide things for children to participate in – the olfactory map, the games, small scenes of acting to observe and other things, but my criticism of the children’s activities would be that because of the tension of the ‘family feud’, the raised voices and frequent clashes between the actors were a little frightening for children, who would not fully understand what these arguments between strangers were about.
From Hampton Court, we went to Kensington Palace to experience the court of George II in 1730. Here the focus was on fashion, art and culture as well as the writers and philosophers of the period, of whom Queen Caroline was a strong supporter. The exhibition was housed in the State Apartments designed by William Kent. The staircase to the apartments – which one ascends in the gaze of a painted milieu of gentlemen, ladies, children, animals and even the artist himself – was the highlight of the day.
Display information was minimal, furniture and artefacts sparse. Again, paper effigies represented some key figures in the principal rooms. We were visiting on a Wednesday, when there were only a few re-enactors present during our visit, and so we were less able to interact on a personal level with them. We watched a ‘set-piece’ in which two ladies of the bedchamber dressed Queen Caroline in her evening clothes whilst ‘gossiping’ with the watching crowd, but it felt more like a performance rather than a piece of interactive re-enactment. In some of the state rooms, there was an audio performance, but this was muffled and often became inaudible when other visitors were talking. Kensington was definitely a less immersive experience for us both. I found the display panels somewhat trite and Mr R found them inadequate in expanding his knowledge. He frequently had to ask me for further information on points of interest to him, such as Queen Caroline’s death. We both left feeling that neither of us had been illuminated by the experience.
Our final visit was to Kew Palace. On arrival, we joined a queue of bemused holders of Historic Royal Palace pass-holders who were being informed that whilst entry to Kew Palace was indeed free, access was only available through Kew Gardens and that we had to buy a ticket for £10 per person. This might have been acceptable if we had been planning to spend the day, but as our sole reason for visiting was for the exhibition, this seemed a little steep.
Kew Palace itself is Jacobean in origin and was used as a small family retreat by George III and his family. In the early years of his reign it was occupied when he and Queen Charlotte wanted to escape the spectacle of court life and enjoy some domestic peace. In the latter part of his reign, it was a safe place for when he was plagued by his bouts of madness, that some have speculated were caused by porphyria.
We had been expecting our visit to be placed sometime in the 1770s, when the couple had a young and growing family. Indeed, the advertising for the exhibition said that it focused on the monarch’s education and domestic life, his love of farming and innovation, and his pride at being a British-born king. Confusingly therefore the costumed guides (not re-enactors) were dressed in the style of the early 19th century and one of them later confirmed that their dresses were based on an 1804 pattern. There were no re-enactors present at all during our visit (a Friday during the school summer holidays) which was something of a disappointment.
The displays on the ground floor area were somewhat more informative than at Kensington and focused on George III’’s education and lifelong interest in science and innovation. There was also a voice-over with a media display of Queen Charlotte and her offspring, but this was difficult to hear and understand. The first floor was furnished in the style of the early 19th century, but confusingly had audio of the monarch’s nearest and dearest recounting one of his first fits of madness in 1778. The second floor was empty of furniture, more or less as it had been when the remainder of the family departed from Kew following George III’s death, with a few display panels. I was confused as to what time period was being portrayed, and my overall impression was of a jumbled curatorial view.
The ‘Glorious Georges’ was therefore an erratic experience. Where things were done well, they were excellent. Other areas were at best indifferent and some key points of interest were entirely overlooked. I felt, for example, that the relationship between government and court was scarcely ever evoked. An aficionado of the period would feel that there was something lacking whereas someone unfamiliar with the period would feel that what they learnt was patchy and much of the story missing. Additionally I would have hoped for more of a sense of continuity, so that the exhibitions supported each other more. Nevertheless this was an intriguing concept, bravely attempted and it is to be hoped that Historic Royal Palaces can build on this with future thematic exhibitions.
The Glorious Georges continues at Hampton Court Palace, Kensington Palace and Kew Palace until the 30th of November 2014. Admission varies between sites, but it is possible to become a member and obtain free entrance to all Historic Royal Palaces venues (with the exception of Kew Palace). Several other special events connected with the tercentenary will take place; see www.hrp.org.uk for details.