The earliest royal birthday greeting.

It has long been a tradition that anyone reaching the age of 100 years receives a greeting card from the Monarchy.

George V sent out the first formal greeting in 1917 via his Private Secretary.[1] Before that other greetings had been sent, but not in an organised way. In 1908 Edward VII’s secretary sent a greeting to the Reverend Thomas Lord of Horncastle congratulating him on his 100^th birthday. This is thought to have been the first official Royal greeting sent to a centenarian. However I have found evidence of an earlier occasion. A verbal congratulatory conversations with a man on his 100^th birthday.

The reason for extra recognition for those individuals reaching 100 years of age is because it was so rare. Prior to the 20^th Century, reaching the age of 100 was almost unknown. Poor diets, hard physical occupations, and limited medical science meant that few people survived into old age. There was no such thing as enjoying a restful retirement. Unless people had managed to save money to keep themselves in later years they either had to continue working, live with a relative, or go into the Workhouse. State pensions did not exist before January 1909.  The first pensions were paid to people over the age of 70. A single person received five shillings a week (25p) and a couple seven shillings and sixpence (37p). This was just enough to pay for basic food.

In my recent researches I have found what I believe to be the earliest example of a Royal Birthday Greeting to a Centenarian. On 23 April 1832 [Easter Monday] King William IV and Queen Adelaide were in Staines, Middlesex, for the official opening of the Staines Bridge across the Thames. Staines had been a main crossing point on the Thames since Roman times and ever since then a series of wooden and iron bridges had been built to carry the main road from London to Berkshire. One by one the bridges failed until the fifth and final bridge, now built of granite, was finally opened in 1832. After the opening ceremony the assembled citizens noticed “two men of unequal size making way through the crowd towards the presence of their majesties. These apparent intruders were Colonel Wood of Littleton and William Goring , tailor of Chertsey.”[2] Colonel Wood was a prominent landowner in the area and a member of the Staines Bridge Commission. He stood five foot eleven inches high and William Goring was five foot four inches. The two men stood before the royal couple and Colonel Wood introduced the Mr Goring to them and added that the tailor wished to speak to them. The tailor told the king that he had walked from Chertsey to Staines that morning [about four miles] especially to shake hands with the King as that day was his hundredth birthday. He received hearty congratulations from the King and Queen.

At first hearing this the security for the royal couple appears to be lax until I read that the area immediately around the area were for ticketed guests only and there were two military contingents in attendance. The members of the Staines Bridge commission, which included Colonel Wood, had greeted the King and Queen on arrival so his face was known to them.[3]

Staines New Bridge 1842[4]

After an official address by the Rector of Staines the Royal Party proceeded to the Saracen’s head to partake of a cold collation. The meeting of Mr Goring with the King and Queen was an event that was still being talked about four years later when Mr Goring died at the age of 104, and in a later retelling of the story by the North London News, twenty-six years, later did we learn of the disparity in height between Colonel Wood and Mr Goring.

This story humanises history. It links the common people with the otherwise inaccessible royalty. It demonstrates praise and recognition for those lucky enough to have reached a great age. Thirdly it describes an occasion of great rejoicing for the town of Staines who had finally built a sturdy and much needed legacy bridge across the Thames.

---

[1] http://royalcentral.co.uk/blogs/a-royal-tradition-the-queens-100th-birthday-messages-8673. Accessed 3/10/16

[2] A story retold in the North London News, Sunday 31 October 1868.

[3] "Opening of the New Bridge at Staines." Times [London, England] 24 Apr. 1832: 2+. The Times Digital Archive. Web. 5 Oct. 2016.

[4] [4]1832: The Mirror of Literature, Amusement, and Instruction. SATURDAY, MAY 26 -   From http://thames.me.uk/s00490.htm accessed 3/10/16

Death of an Eton Schoolboy

On Sunday 28^th February 1825, after church, two schoolboys got into an argument in the playground which resulted in a fight which was broken up by other pupils. The two schoolboys however demanded satisfaction and they agreed to meet for a bare-knuckle fight the following day. The school boys in question were the Hon. Anthony Francis Ashley Cooper, the fourth son of Lord Shaftesbury and Charles Alexander Wood, the son of Colonel Wood a politician, landowner and courtier. The playground was at Eton School, the renowned boarding school for sons of the nobility.

Fist fighting was illegal but it was a custom at Eton for differences to be settled by a “pugilistic contest”, and at the end the victor shook hands with his adversary.[1] At four p.m. on 1^st March 1825 a large group of scholars gathered to watch the contest. Mr Cooper had declared he would never give in, but by the eighth round he was beginning to tire. Some of his supporters gave him brandy to help him recover and the contest continued. Brandy was administered between every round and after nearly two hours, Cooper fell heavily and hit his head and fell unconscious. He was carried to his lodgings by his brother and put to bed. No one thought to call the doctor as he appeared to be sleeping, but four hours later when medical assistance arrived it was too late and the youth died.

The fight and its consequences were widely reported in The Times and other newspapers. The death of the son of such a high-ranking nobleman was discussed for some time and the sorrow was felt by many.  Immediately after the death the Secretary of Lord Shaftesbury arrived at Eton to remove his two other sons from Eton. A Bill in Parliament which the Lord Chancellor was due to commit had to be postponed due to the Chairman of the Committees of the House of Lords, Lord Shaftesbury , having gone to Eton on hearing of the death of his son.[2]  Colonel Wood also arrived at Eton on hearing the news and “evinced much sorrow”.[3]

The inquest took place in the Christopher  Inn in Eton, at 2pm the day after the death. Mr Charsley the Coroner swore in the Jury and they all proceeded to walk to the deceased’s lodgings to view the corpse. On returning to the Inn where crowds of scholars were in the inn-yard and several Masters inside the Jury room. The Constable was asked to bring forward witnesses and he declared that he had been unable to find any. This statement was made inspite of the Times reporting that the majority of scholars were present at the fight. The Constable declared that he had “inquired amongst the Collegians but they were not inclined to give him any information.”[4] Mr Christopher Teasdale was presented to the Court. He said he was a student who knew both combatants and was present at the first fight but did not know what it was about. He heard they had agreed to fight the next day at 4pm. He was so reluctant to give any details that the Coroner had to admonish him. Another witness, Mr Carter, said he saw no foul blows struck and thought it was a fair fight. He said that after the 11^th and subsequent rounds he did see brandy being given to Mr Cooper.  The witness knew that Mr Wood had an appointment with a Master and heard him ask Cooper several times to postpone the fight, but Cooper and his second would not agree. After another round the deceased fell heavily and Wood said he must go. He was prepared to make up with his protagonist but by this time Cooper was unconscious. The witness thought Cooper had drunk about half a pint of brandy during the fight, although the Coroner declared that it was an exaggeration.

A surgeon was called as a witness. Mr O’Reilly said he visited the deceased on Monday night. He declared that the cause of death was a brain haemorrhage. The Coroner asked if this was caused by a blow or by a fall or by a natural cause. The doctor said it was caused by a violent fall, and if there had not been a four hour delay in calling for medical assistance there was a chance that the deceased might have survived.

In the Coroner’s summing up to the Jury he said “he had no hesitation in saying that he did not believe they entertained a feeling of malice towards each other which would make the offence murder”.[5] However the killing of a person is an unlawful act and amounted to manslaughter. It was up to the Jury to decide if the deceased was unlawfully killed even though the fight appeared to be a fair trial of strength. After several hours the Jury returned a verdict of manslaughter against Mr Wood and Mr Cooper’s second, Alexander Wellesley Leith.

The Christopher Inn, 1828 [A pub near Eton College] by J. Buckler[6]

Charles Alexander Wood was held in custody at the house of his tutor guarded by a Constable. The Earl of Shaftesbury declined to bring charges but the parties still had to be tried on the coroner’s warrant.

The funeral of the Hon. Anthony Francis Ashley Cooper took place at Eton on Sunday 6^th March and after the service his body was placed in a vault in the ante-chapel. A newspaper reported that the Provost would address the boys on the “impropriety of their recent conduct”, but this speech did not take place.[7]

Many of the facts of the case were mis-reported and in the days that followed the papers had to print corrections. Colonel Wood reported that his son was 14 and not 17 as some had reported.[8]  Lord Shaftesbury took out an advertisement to say that only one of his sons took part in the fight. The other was confined to bed by a severe illness.[9]

On the 8^th March 1825 the Times Leader wrote a scathing attack on Eton College. They reported that they had received a great many letters on the subject of the “melancholy event” at Eton. Normally, it said, they regard “crimes or calamities” at schools and colleges as accidental and they recognise that boys left to “their natural resources” will often end up fighting after a quarrel, and up to a point they advocate this. The fact that Cooper and Wood fought is accepted, but that the lads at Eton should be given brandy as a substitute for their natural stamina is to be condemned.  The Leader went on to question the “astonishing ignorance” of the students at Eton who did not recognise the fact that if a boy is insensible and remains so for several hours he should receive medical attention. In other words The Times suggested that parents of scholars at Eton who hand guardianship of their children to the supposedly intelligent and experienced staff cannot be secure about their care.

The Headmaster of Eton College, Rev. Dr. Edward Craven Hawtrey, wrote indignantly to the Times that Charles Alexander Wood remained in his house until his father collected him the following day and he did not permit him, not least because of Wood’s own emotional state, to appear in class. The headmaster also reports that three gentlemen, returning from a hunt, came across the fight in the school playing fields about 50 minutes after it had commenced. They watched the fight for ten minutes and rode away after seeing nothing that warranted their interference.[10]

The Trial of Wood and Leith for manslaughter began at Aylesbury on Wednesday March 9^th 1825. Both pleaded ‘Not Guilty’. Mr Wood was described by the Times as being of elegant appearance, aged about 14, but his “eyes were very much confused”.[11] His coat sleeve was still torn from the fight. Mr Leith was aged about 19. No one appeared in Court to conduct the prosecution. The witness from the Coroner’s Court, Christopher Teasdale, was called three times, but did not appear. The Coroner was called who confirmed that he had given Teasdale, as well as two other witnesses, notice to attend, but none were present.

As there were no prosecution the prisoners had to be acquitted and a Not Guilty verdict was given. An application to hear Mr Wood’s defence statement was refused and he returned with his father to London. Mr Leith also had a defence statement prepared had the trial proceeded. The Times printed his statement in full. Mr Leith disputed the amount of alcohol that was reported to have been administered to Mr Cooper during the fight. Leith said the deceased only sipped at the brandy between rounds and no more than one whole glass was consumed. He also said that it was not unusual for spirits to be given to contestants in fights at Eton, and that he was not the only supporter of Mr Cooper between rounds. He goes on to correct the report about the disparity in ages of the combatants and confirms they were of equal age. He concludes that he does not claim to be blameless, but thinks that the real cause of the fatality is inexperience.[12]

On 14^th March the Times reported that Lord Shaftesbury had written to Colonel Wood, “couched in very friendly terms” in which he believed that no blame should be attached to young Wood in relation to the unfortunate affair and that he will continue to send his other sons to Eton.[13] By publicly releasing this letter the Earl hoped to end the newspapers attention on this whole affair. In the public’s minds it had been written off as an unfortunate accident, although for those involved the memories of the fight might have been harder to eradicate.

It is not known what the lasting effect of this incident did to Leith and Wood. Alexander Wellesley Leith succeeded his father to the baronetcy in Jan 1842 and died six months later in Madeira at the age of 35.[14] He left a wife and son. In his short life he does not appear to have made any impact on society and his life is not chronicled in any biographical dictionary.

Charles Alexander Wood continued to study at Eton and then went on to study at Cambridge.[15]

He became a Colonial Land and Emigration Commissioner responsible for superintending the sale and settlement of the waste lands of the Crown in the British Colonies “and the conveyance of emigrants thither”.[16] He was the Treasurer of the Society of Ancient Britons and attended royal functions in that capacity. He was also deputy Chairman of the board of the Great Western Railway. He was knighted by Queen Victoria in 1874.[17] He died in 1890.

Conclusion.

The fact that both Colonel Thomas Wood and Major-General Sir George Leith, fathers of the accused, were present at the trial reflects on the parental concern of both men, but I cannot help wondering why there were no witnesses or prosecutors at the trial. I have no idea how common this was so I cannot comment further.

For two weeks, until Lord Shaftesbury’s letter to Colonel Wood effectively put an end to the gossip and discussion, the case was reported daily in the newspapers. It was probably seen as an indication that children of the rich and noble were no different in character to street urchins. It showed the public that an education makes no difference to a boy’s natural instinct to fight. The Times leader called it duelling among boys and suggesting that by venting their angry feelings it extinguished personal hatred. The publication seems to suggest that fighting among boys is natural and it teaches them courage and strength. This is probably the reason that the staff at Eton at that time appear to have shown a blind eye to the occasional fight among pupils.

---

[1] "Coroner's Inquest." Times [London, England] 3 Mar. 1825: 3. The Times Digital Archive. Web. 16 Sept. 2016.

[2] "The Lisbon papers contain the official notification of the appointment of Count Palmella as Ambassador to this." Times [London, England] 2 Mar. 1825: 4. The Times Digital Archive. Web. 16 Sept. 2016.

[3] "Coroner's Inquest." Times [London, England] 3 Mar. 1825: 3. The Times Digital Archive. Web. 16 Sept. 2016.

[4] "Coroner's Inquest." Times [London, England] 3 Mar. 1825: 3. The Times Digital Archive. Web. 16 Sept. 2016.

[5] "Coroner's Inquest." Times [London, England] 3 Mar. 1825: 3. The Times Digital Archive. Web. 16 Sept. 2016.

[6] Lyte, H. C. Maxwell, Sir. A history of Eton College, 1440-1910. 4th ed., rev. London: Macmillan, 1911, p. 295.

[7] "ETON, SUNDAY AFTERNOON.-The funeral of the Hon. F. A. Cooper, who was unfortunately killed on." Times [London, England] 7 Mar. 1825: 3. The Times Digital Archive. Web. 16 Sept. 2016.

[8] "The recent melancholy event at Eton has, in all circles, made a most painful impression. The statement that one of the." Times [London, England] 7 Mar. 1825: 3. The Times Digital Archive. Web. 16 Sept. 2016.

[9] "It was rumoured in the gallery of the House of Commons, that pending the debate last night, intelligence." Times [London, England] 8 Mar. 1825: 4. The Times Digital Archive. Web. 16 Sept. 2016.

[10] "E. C. HAWTREY." "Eton School." Times [London, England] 9 Mar. 1825: 3. The Times Digital Archive. Web. 16 Sept. 2016.

[11] "Aylesbury, Wednesday, March 9." Times [London, England] 10 Mar. 1825: 3. The Times Digital Archive. Web. 16 Sept. 2016.

[12] "Aylesbury, Wednesday, March 9." Times [London, England] 10 Mar. 1825: 3. The Times Digital Archive. Web. 16 Sept. 2016.

[13] "We understand that Lord Shaftesbury has written a letter to Colonel Wood, couched in very friendly terms, in." Times [London, England] 14 Mar. 1825: 2. The Times Digital Archive. Web. 16 Sept. 2016.

[14] "Deaths." Times [London, England] 9 May 1842: 9. The Times Digital Archive. Web. 24 Sept. 2016.

[15] Cambridge Alumni 1261-1900

[16] The Times (London, England), Saturday May 30, 1846; pg.6; Issue 19250.

[17] “Obituary”Times, (London, England) 8 Apr. 1890: 3. The Times Digital Archive. Accessed 15 Sept 2016.

Today is the 350^th Anniversary of the second day of the Great Fire of London. 

Observers of the event such as John Evelyn and Samuel Pepys gave us a first-hand and vivid picture of the Great Fire for which historians will be forever grateful. Although the fire was started accidentally there were rumours that it was arson and the prelude to invasion or revolution, People had been nervous about the significance of the year ending ‘666’. This number is shown in the Bible as a number associated with the devil and caused some dissenting preachers to predict all sorts of calamities. They felt that a disaster would be a sign of God’s punishment for the sinful lives of the population. The most notable prophet was Humphry Smith,  a Quaker preacher from Herefordshire, who wrote his prediction about a major fire in London in 1660 and who even predicted the Dutch Navy’s attack on the Royal Navy in the Medway.[1]

Although many merchants had their homes and livelihoods destroyed by the fire others benefited. St Paul’s churchyard had long been known as the area of booksellers and whilst the fire was raging the booksellers took their stock into the crypt of St Faith’s for safe keeping. Unfortunately the ferocity of the fire reached into the crypt and the books were destroyed. However one enlightened bookseller, Henry Herringman had his business in the newly fashionable New Exchange in The Strand. This was outside the City and away from the fire. He profited from the fact that most of his competitors lost their entire stock in the Great Fire.[2]

This is the new St Paul’s which was rebuilt on the ashes of its predecessor after the Great Fire of London 1666. This picture, taken during the blitz, recreates what it might have looked like when the fire was raging around the old St Paul’s.

---

[1] Stephen K. Roberts, ‘Smith, Humphry (bap. 1624, d.1663)’, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004 [http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/25818, accessed 2 Sept 2016]

[2] C. Y. Ferdinand, ‘Herringman, Henry (bap. 1628, d.1704)’, rev. Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004; online edn, Jan 2008 [http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/37538, accessed 3 Sept 2016]