Saturday, October 3, 2015

The movie "Belle" (2013)


Belle poster.jpg


Belle is a 103-minute drama-documentary, which premiered at an international film festival in 2013; it was shown in theatres and released on DVD in 2014. Directed by Amma Asante, written by Misan Sagay, and produced by Damian Jones, this film is a period drama set in eighteenth-century England.

The lead character is the woman after whom the film is named: Dido Elizabeth Belle, a mulatto (half-black, half-white), who was raised in the household of a white aristocratic family.

The dramatized version of her life includes a love story and touches on several serious issues of the time such as power and privilege; class, gender and race; prejudice and tolerance, as well as the slave trade and slavery in general.
 
The cast includes the following:

** Dido Elizabeth Belle (1761-1804) – played by Gugu Mbatha-Raw

** Elizabeth Murray (1760-1825) – played by Sarah Gadon

** William Murray, aka Lord Mansfield, the first Earl of Mansfield (1705-1793) – played by Tom Wilkinson

** Elizabeth Murray, his wife, aka Lady Mansfield (1704-1784) – played by Emily Watson

** John Lindsay, Belle’s father (1737-1788) – played by Matthew Goode

** John Davinier, son of a clergyman and Lord Mansfield’s legal assistant – played by Sam Reid

[Please note: there are some spoilers ahead. If you have not seen the film and you do not want to know any details about it, stop reading now. If you have seen it or you want to prepare yourself for it, you should continue reading.]

THE PLOT
Belle’s mother was Maria Belle, a black slave from Africa. Her father was John Lindsay, a white man from England, who was a captain in the Royal Navy. John met Maria while he was stationed in the Caribbean. As a young child, Belle was brought to England by her father who placed her with his uncle, Lord Mansfield, an important and powerful aristocrat. He was Lord Chief Justice of England for more than thirty years (1756-1788). 
 
In the beginning of the film Belle and her father arrive at Kenwood House in Hampstead, north of London. Lord Mansfield and his wife are shocked when they realise Belle is black, but they decide to take her in anyway because she is after all the daughter of Lord Mansfield’s nephew.

When Belle arrives, another young girl is already living at Kenwood House: Elizabeth Murray, the daughter of David Murray, another nephew of Lord Mansfield. David had married Henrietta in 1759 and they had one daughter – Elizabeth – in 1760. When Elizabeth’s mother died in 1766, her father placed her with his uncle, Lord Mansfield, the first Earl of Mansfield. Later, David Murray would be the second Earl of Mansfield.

The two girls are cousins, actually half-cousins, but grow up as sisters. Both are treated as members of the family, but because of her colour, Belle is not allowed to sit at the dinner table when there are guests in the house. She is, however, allowed to join family and guests after dinner. Her status is difficult to define. As she says in the film:
 
How can I be too high of rank to dine with the servants, but too low of rank to dine with my own family?”

When Elizabeth and Dido are almost twenty years old, Lord Mansfield decides to commission a portrait of them. In the film we see how they have to sit for the painter, first Elizabeth and later Dido.

Around the same time Lady Mansfield says it is time to start looking for a suitable husband for Elizabeth. She and her husband agree that it is not possible to find a suitable husband for Dido, because of her colour.

While these things are going on, Lord Mansfield is working on a case that involves a cargo-ship - the Zong - that was transporting slaves from Africa to the Americas in 1781. Before reaching its final destination, the captain and the crew decided to throw more than one hundred slaves overboard, because they were sick and weak and they would not fetch a good price on the market. Officially, they were dumped in order to save the crew and the rest of the cargo (the healthy and strong slaves), because there was not enough water on board.

Later the ship’s owner contacted his insurance company. He wanted compensation for the cargo that had been “lost” on the voyage. When the insurance company refused to pay, the ship’s owner decided to go to court.

[Please note: the company is not being sued for murder; the question is quite different: can the company be compensated for lost cargo? This fact is a sign of the times.]

In 1783, this case lands on Lord Mansfield’s desk. He must study the case and issue a ruling. In order to speed things up, he decides to hire a young man as his legal assistant. His name is John Davinier. In the film he is presented as the son of a clergyman who wants to become a lawyer. He is also an ardent abolitionist. He wants Lord Mansfield to rule against the ship’s owner, because he is opposed to the slave trade and to slavery in general.

When Dido hears about the case, she begins to take an interest in it. She also begins to take an interest in the young man, although at first she is not ready to admit this to anyone, not even to herself. He seems to feel the same way. He sees her as a person. The colour of her skin does not matter to him. Thus the stage is set for the love story between Dido and Davinier.

Lord Mansfield does not want to discuss the case with Dido and he does not want Davinier to discuss it with her either. He fires him, in order to keep them apart, but the young man and the young woman cannot be stopped: they have a common interest in the case and a growing interest in each other. They decide to meet in secret. We can guess where this is going. After a while, Lord Mansfield gives them his blessing, and so we can have a happy ending for Dido and Davinier.

THE PAINTING
According to the people behind the film – Amma Asante, Misan Sagay and Damian Jones – it was inspired by the painting of Dido and Elizabeth which is on display at Scone Palace near Perth, in Scotland, the birthplace of Lord Mansfield.

The unsigned painting was previously attributed to the German artist Johann Zoffany (1733-1810), but today this idea has been rejected. Perhaps it was painted by the Scottish artist David Martin (1737-1797), who did a portrait of Lord Mansfield (ca. 1775).

Amma Asante, the director of Belle, explains why the painting inspired her film:
 
“You see a biracial girl, a woman of colour, who’s depicted slightly higher than her white counterpart. She’s staring directly out, with a very confident eye. This painting flipped tradition and everything the 18th century told us about portraiture. What I saw was an opportunity to tell a story that would combine art, history and politics.”

The painting was completed in 1779 when the cousins were almost twenty years old. It remained at Kenwood House until 1922 when it was moved to Scone Palace in Scotland, where it remains to this day.

When the painting is shown in the film [at 1.24], it has been modified in two ways. First, the faces of the modern actresses have replaced the original faces of Dido and Elizabeth. Secondly, Dido’s curious gesture pointing to her cheek has disappeared. Nobody knows what the gesture means.

The original painting is shown at the end of the film [at 1.38].

While the two young women are presented at the same level, there is a subtle difference between them. Elizabeth is sitting, she has a book in her left hand, perhaps to give her an intellectual quality, and she is not moving. But her right arm reaches out to Dido. Perhaps because Dido is running away from her. Maybe she wants to say: “Don’t go! Stay here!”

Dido is wearing a turban (something exotic); in her left hand she is holding a basket with fruits, and she has a forward movement. She is not sitting. The index finger of her right hand is pointing to her cheek. Perhaps she wants to say: “I am still here.” The people behind the film did not like the curious gesture. In the modified version of the painting it has been removed. I understand they had to change the faces. This is a legitimate decision. But why remove the gesture? There was no need for this change.

** The painting of Dido and Elizabeth.** 

HISTORICAL ACCURACY
The film is inspired by a painting and based on a true story. But we do not know many details of Dido’s life. Our information is limited. For the filmmakers this can be a blessing. They can fill in the gaps with whatever they like, as long as their ideas fit the few facts that we have. Unfortunately, they did not work in this way. For them it was not enough to fill in the gaps. They decided to change the known facts in order to fit their own ideas about Dido and her surroundings.

While a large part of what we see and hear in this film is true, not everything is historically correct. Even basic facts have been changed. In fact, the concept called artistic license has been used in many ways from the beginning to the end of the film, and the result is not always an improvement. Here are some examples:

** THE CHRONOLOGY. The film opens with a brief message: “The year is 1769. Britain is an empire and [London is] a slave-trading capital.” The year given here is puzzling. Dido was born in 1761 and came to England in 1765. She was baptized in 1766 when she was five years old. According to the film, she arrives is England in 1769 when she is 8 years old, but this is not true. Why start out by giving us a wrong year? As far as I can see, this change does not serve any purpose at all.

** DIDO’S MOTHER. In the film we are told that Dido’s mother is dead and this is the reason why her father brings her to his uncle in England. But this is not true. Maria Belle was born around 1746 and died after 1781. Recent research by Margo Stringfield, an archaeologist from the University of West Florida, shows Maria Belle was living in Pensacola, Florida, in the 1770s, and that John Lindsay had bought this house for her. Why did he bring his daughter to England? Perhaps he hoped she would have a better life there. We do not know. But the point is Maria Belle did not die in 1765 when Dido was four years old.

** DIDO’S FATHER. In the film we see him as he brings Dido to Kenwood House. After this we never see him again. When Dido is a teenager, about 18, Lord Mansfield informs her that her father has died. If she is 18, we are in 1779, but John Lindsay did not die in that year. He lived until 1788, when Dido was 27. The chronology of events has been changed. For no obvious reason.

** DIDO’S ECONOMIC SITUATION. In the film, Dido inherits a large amount of money from her father: £ 2,000 per year. Suddenly, she is a wealthy woman; she does not have to marry. However, this is not true. John Lindsay had three children with three different women. He was married to a fourth woman, with whom he had no children. In his will he donated £ 1,000 to the other two children, but he gave nothing to Dido, perhaps assuming Lord Mansfield would provide for her. This assumption turned out to be true. When Lord Mansfield died in 1793, Dido learned that his will gave her a one-time payment of £ 500 plus an annuity of £ 100, but John Lindsay could not know this when he made his will.

** ELIZABETH’S ECONOMIC SITUATION. In the film, Elizabeth is penniless, because her father has donated all his assets to his second wife. This means that it is difficult for her to find and marry a man of high standing. In the film, a suitor withdraws his interest as soon as he discovers that she has no fortune. In the film, Dido has money, while Elizabeth does not. In the real world, the situation was the opposite. In addition, the economic disparity between the cousins is used to cause a rift between them. There is no basis for this story-line. Elizabeth was not penniless and she did find a husband. In 1785, when she was 25, she married George Finch-Hatton, and they had three children (as stated in a message at the end of the film).

** LORD MANSFIELD’S LEGAL ASSISTANT. In the film, John Davinier is the son of a clergyman who wants to be a lawyer. In the real world he was a servant. It is not known if he was an abolitionist, but he did marry Dido in 1793, shortly after the death of Lord Mansfield. A message at the end of the film states that they had two sons. In fact they had three sons. Two twins born and baptized in 1795, and one son born in 1800 and baptized in 1802.

** THE LEGAL CASE. Lord Mansfield ruled on two cases which concerned the slave trade and slavery. The first is about Somerset in 1772; the second about the Zong in 1783. In the film, the first case is never mentioned. But when he gives his ruling on the second case, his words are taken from his ruling on the first case eleven years before. In this way the film combines the two cases without telling us about it.

In the film, Lord Mansfield declares that the insurance company does not have to pay compensation to the owner of the ship. Dido and Davinier are ecstatic when they hear the verdict. In the real world, Lord Mansfield did no such thing; he merely ordered a new hearing based on additional evidence. Apparently, the real verdict was not strong enough for the filmmakers, so they decided to improve the facts and turn the conservative judge into an ardent abolitionist, even though he had no intention of confronting the elite whose fortunes were based on the slave trade and slavery.

** PUBLIC OR PRIVATE? In the final scene, outside the courthouse, Lord Mansfield gives the young couple his blessing and drives away in his carriage. Dido and Davinier embrace and kiss each other, even though they are standing in a public place. The real Dido and Davinier would never have done this. They would have waited until they were in a private place. I understand the filmmakers want us to feel happy for them, but the scene is a serious violation of the norms and customs which applied in eighteenth-century England. It is an anachronism. With this scene we are suddenly carried into the twentieth or the twenty-first century. This is stretching the artistic license more than is acceptable.

THE IMPORTANCE OF DIDO
This film does not claim that Dido’s presence in Kenwood House influenced Lord Mansfield when he wrote his rulings on Somerset in 1772 and on the Zong in 1783. If anything, this film claims the opposite, because the Mansfield on the screen does not want to talk to Dido about his case and he does not want his assistant to talk to her about it either. He fires Davinier in order to keep them apart and to prevent her from learning more about it. He does not succeed with these measures, but that is beside the point.

No matter what the film says and no matter what the historical evidence says, it is extremely interesting that the Lord Chief Justice of England had a relative who was half-black and half-white in his household. Dido was raised in Kenwood House and lived there for almost thirty tears. She was not treated exactly as her white cousin, there were small differences, but she was not treated as a slave or as a servant. Given the norms and customs which applied among the aristocracy in eighteenth-century England, her presence in this family and the privileges she enjoyed amount to a small revolution.

Lady and Lord Mansfield did not have any children of their own. By all accounts they were happy to have the cousins in their house. Having Dido and Elizabeth together year after year could have made an impression on the man of the house and could have made him question the laws which stated that white people were superior to all others. Dido was an outsider in England. So was Lord Mansfield: he was Scottish, not English; he was Catholic, not Anglican; he was not the first son of his family, but he made a fortune for himself as a lawyer.

Lord Mansfield did not want to rock the boat, he did not want to challenge the system that was based on the slave trade and slavery. But if his rulings were not revolutionary, they inspired others who wanted to rock the boat, who wanted to challenge the system – people such as Granville Sharp (1735-1813) and Olaudah Equino (1745-1797).

The rulings on Somerset in 1772 and on the Zong in 1783 fuelled a movement that would lead to the UK abolition of the slave trade in 1807 and the UK abolition of slavery in a gradual process that began in 1833 (to be completed by 1840). This is what the makers of Belle imply and who can blame them for this?

CONCLUSION
As stated above, this film is inspired by a painting and based on a true story. The painting is a wonderful piece of historical evidence. The few facts that we have about Dido point to a character who grew in more than one way while she lived at Kenwood House: she grew up to be young woman, but that was not all: she also became aware of her own background and developed a confidence that would support her through the rest of her life which (sadly) ended in 1804.

I can understand why Amma Asante, Misan Sagay, and Damian Jones wanted to make this film. I can understand why the actors chosen wanted to be in this film. The combination of Dido – half-black and half-white, daughter of a slave from Africa – and Lord Mansfield – the Lord Chief Justice of England who has to rule on cases regarding the slave trade and slavery – is fantastic, incredible. Sometimes the true historical facts will outdo even the most creative minds.

The film was well received by professional critics and by the general public. On Rotten Tomatoes it has a rating of 83 per cent. On IMDb it has a rating of 74 per cent. On Metacritic it has a rating of 64 per cent.

I like this film. I would like to give it five stars, but I cannot do this. I have two main objections. The first objection concerns the violations of historical accuracy already explained above. I do not understand why the filmmakers felt they had to embellish the true story. The second objections concerns the dialogue. Sometimes the dialogue is too stilted, and the lines written for the actors are not always good enough.

For instance, when Davinier has to explain why he is against slavery, he says a lot of words, but it is not easy to understand what he says. If I cannot understand, I am not convinced. Davinier and his abolitionist friends are not credible, because their speech is too complicated.

While there is much to like here, I cannot accept everything I see and hear. This movie is quite good, but not great. I must take off one star for the first objection and another star for the second objection. The conclusion is a rating of three stars.

PS # 1. For information about the life and times of Dido, see Dido Elizabeth Belle by Fergus Mason (2014) and Belle by Paula Byrne (2014). Some reviewers of these books complain that they offer too little information about the main character and too much information about the slave trade and slavery in general.

PS # 2. For information about the first Earl of Mansfield, see Lord Mansfield: Justice in the Age of Reason by Norman S. Poser (2015)

PS # 3. For information about the infamous slave-ship, see The Zong by James Walvin (2011). The massacre of the slaves on the Zong is the subject of a famous painting called The Slave Ship by the British artist J. M. W. Turner, first exhibited in 1840.

PS # 4. For information about the manor in Hampstead, see Kenwood: The Iveagh Bequest by Laura Holiston and Susan Jenkins (English Heritage in 2014). Several scenes of the film are set in Kenwood, but they are not filmed there, because Kenwood was closed for major restoration from 2012 to 2013 while the film was being shot.

PS # 5. For information about the castle near Perth in Scotland, see Scone Palace by Jamie Jauncey (2015).

PS # 6. For information about Dido, her father John Lindsay and her mother Maria Belle in Pensacola, Florida, see Historical Pensacola by John J. Clune and Margo Stringfield (2009).

PS # 7. The following articles about Dido and the film are available online:

** Gene Adams, “Dido Elizabeth Belle: A black girl at Kenwood,” Camden Historical Review, vol. 12 (1984), pp. 10-14

** “The little girl who helped end slavery in Britain,” Georgian London, 6 November 2009

** Christine Kenyon Jones, “Ambiguous cousinship,” Persuasions online, vol. 31, no.1, winter 2010, published by the Jane Austen Society of North America

** T. J. Holmes, “Belle: A lesson about British slavery buried in a love story,” The Root, 9 April 2014

** Henry Louis Gates, Jr., “Who was the real Dido Elizabeth Belle?” The Root, 26 August 2014

** Stuart Jeffries, “Dido Belle: the art-world enigma who inspired a movie,” The Guardian, 27 May 2014

** Alex von Tunzelmann, “Belle: was British history really this black and white?” The Guardian, 11 June 2014

** Maria Puente, “Movie inspired by a painting, Belle is a true story,” USA Today, 5 May 2014

** Maria Puente, “Taking a few liberties with the real story of Belle,” USA Today, 5 May 2014

** Steven W. Thomas, “The assurance of Belle, the insurance of the Zong, and the speculation of Cinema,” Film and Media, 12 June 2014

** BBC, “Historian at the movies: An interview with James Walvin,” History Extra, 2 July 2014. James Walvin – author The Zong - is asked to evaluate the film: for enjoyment, he offers 1 star out of five; for historical accuracy, he offers 2 stars out of five. In my opinion, this rating is extremely harsh.

***
Belle,
Directed by Amma Asante,
Produced by Damian Jones,
Written by Misan Sagay,
Run time: 103 minutes,
Premiere: 2013
 
***
 
 
***
 
 
 
 

Friday, October 2, 2015

Kenwood House, England (2014)


Buy Guidebook: Kenwood - The Iveagh Bequest | English Heritage


Kenwood: The Iveagh Bequest by Laura Houliston and Susan Jenkins was published by English Heritage in 2014. It is an excellent guidebook to Kenwood House, a neoclassical villa, located in Hampstead, just north of London. The main text is divided into three sections:

** Section one is about the main building. The important rooms are presented, one by one, with text and illustrations.

** Section two is about the park. The major features of the park are presented, with text and illustrations.

** Section three is about the history of Kenwood. The owners and the architects who were responsible for exterior and interior designs are presented, with text and illustrations.

Spread throughout the book there are ten separate sidebars (each of them gets one page) which provide additional information about important events, significant persons, and or famous paintings which are on display at Kenwood.

This slim volume is published in a large format (21 x 28.5 cm). It is well-written, well-organised, and well-illustrated. All modern photos are in colour. In 1913 Kenwood was presented in Country Life. Some of the photos that were taken then are used here. While they are in black-and-white, they have great historical importance, because they show us what the place looked like more than one hundred years ago.

The layout of the book is user-friendly:

** Inside the front cover there is a flap you can fold out. A large drawing offers a bird’s eye view of Kenwood with the main building in the foreground, the park in the centre, and the city of London in the background.

** Inside the back cover there is another flap you can fold out. There are three floorplans of Kenwood: below, the ground-floor plan; above, the first-floor plan and the floorplan of the dairy, located west of the main building.

THE HISTORY OF KENWOOD
The first house at Kenwood was built by the king’s printer John Bill in 1616. It was a small house. William Murray, a lawyer from Scotland, bought it in 1754 and turned it into a stately home. He was Lord Chief Justice from 1756 and was created the first Earl of Mansfield in 1776. Later earls made further additions and changes to the villa, but they did not live there much. They preferred their residence in Scotland, Scone Palace, near Perth.

By 1910, the sixth Earl of Mansfield had decided to sell Kenwood. It did not happen at once, but some furniture was sold at auction in 1922. In 1925 the first Earl of Iveagh – Edward Cecil Guinness – bought the house. In that year the park was opened to the public. Lord Iveagh died two years later; in his will he donated the house and a part of his collection of famous paintings to the nation. That is why Kenwood is described as the Iveagh Bequest. In 1928 the main building was opened to the public.

Since 1986, Kenwood has been administered by English Heritage. In 2012 it was closed for a major restoration which lasted 18 months and cost almost six million pounds. It was opened to the public again in late 2013. To mark the completion of the restoration a new version of the official guidebook written by Laura Houliston and Susan Jenkins was published in March 2014.

THE IMPORTANCE OF KENWOOD
This estate is important, not only because of the art and architecture it represents, but also because of the people who are connected with it: the owners, the people who lived there, the architects who designed the buildings, the people who rented it, and the people who were invited to visit it while it was still a private home and not yet a public museum. Here are some examples which are mentioned in the book:

** William Murray, the first Earl of Mansfield or Lord Mansfield (1705-1793), bought Kenwood in 1754 and lived here with his family until his death in 1793. He was born in Scotland, but moved to England where he became an important lawyer. He was Lord Chief Justice for more than thirty years (1756-1788). In this capacity he ruled in the case of Somerset in 1772 and the case of the Zong in 1783. These rulings inspired the movement for the abolition of slavery.

** Robert Adam (1728-1792) was a famous architect from Scotland, who worked in England. Lord Mansfield hired him to change Kenwood into a stately home.

** Dido Elizabeth Belle (1761-1804) was raised at Kenwood and lived here for almost thirty years (1765-1793). Her father was a captain of the Royal Navy, John Lindsay. Her mother was a black slave from Africa, Maria Belle. In 1765 his father brought her to England and placed her with his uncle, Lord Mansfield.

** Lady Elizabeth Murray (1760-1825) was the daughter of David Murray, known as the ambassador, who became the second Earl of Mansfield in 1793. When her mother died in 1766, her father placed her with his uncle, Lord Mansfield.

As you can see, there were two young girls at Kenwood. The girls were cousins, actually half-cousins, but grew up as sisters. There is a famous painting of them from 1779 when they were almost twenty years old. The original was in Kenwood for many years. It was not sold in the auction of 1922. Instead it was moved to Scone Palace in Scotland where it remains to this day.

At Kenwood there is a copy. It appears in the book on page 41. The painting of the two young girls inspired an historical movie, the drama-documentary Belle about the early life of Dido Elizabeth Belle that premiered at an international film festival in 2013; it was shown in theatres and released on DVD in 2014.

While several scenes of the film are set in Kenwood, they are not filmed there, because Kenwood was closed for restoration from 2012 to 2013 while the movie was being shot.

** Thomas Hutchinson (1711-1780) was a loyalist governor of Massachusetts for many years (1758-1774). In 1774 he sailed to England where he lived for the rest of his life. He visited Kenwood in 1779. Dido is mentioned in his diary.

** Michael Mikhailovich, Grand Duke of Russia (1861-1929), was exiled from Russia in 1891, because he married without permission from the imperial family. After a while he ended up in England where he rented Kenwood from 1910 to 1917. After the Russian Revolution of 1917 he lost his fortune, so he could no longer afford to live there.

** King Edward VII and Queen Alexandra visited Kenwood in June 1914 while the Grand Duke of Russia was living there.

** Edward Cecil Guinness, the first Earl of Iveagh or Lord Iveagh (1847-1927), made a fortune selling beer. He spent a lot of his money on paintings. In 1925 he bought Kenwood. He planned to make it a home for his collection of paintings. He also planned to donate the house and his paintings to the nation.

When he died in 1927, the plans were not completed, but his wishes were carried out anyway. Kenwood and a part of his collection of paintings were donated to the nation. Since he had stipulated that there should be free access to his museum of art, you do not have to pay anything when you visit this place.



** The famous painting of Dido and Elizabeth.**

MINOR FLAWS
As stated above, this is an excellent book about Kenwood. I noticed only three minor flaws (for more details about the flaws, see the PS below):

# 1. David Martin’s painting of Lord Mansfield is mentioned twice: on page 10 we are told this painting is from 1776. But on page 39 the authors claim it is from 1775. This inconsistency is puzzling.

# 2. Lady Elizabeth Murray is mentioned on page 41. The authors claim she was born ca. 1763 and died 1823. Both dates are wrong. As stated above, Elizabeth Murray was born in 1760 and died in 1825.

# 3. The Grand Duke of Russia is mentioned on page 46. At first he is identified as “grandson of Tsar Nicholas I and second cousin to the last Tsar Nicholas II.” But later on the same page we are told that he was forced to sublet Kenwood in 1917, “following the Russian Revolution and the murder of his brother the Tsar.”

The former identification is correct, but the latter is not. The Grand Duke was not the brother of the last Tsar, he was his second cousin. Moreover, the last Tsar Nicholas II was murdered in 1918, not in 1917, as implied in the text.

CONCLUSION
Who is the target audience of this book? I can think of two or three groups. If you are planning a visit to Kenwood, this book is a useful tool to prepare your visit. If you have already been there, this book will be a wonderful souvenir of your visit.

Perhaps you are an armchair traveller. If you are interested in the history of the modern world, in particular the history of art and architecture, I am sure you will enjoy this slim volume about Kenwood from English Heritage.

PS # 1. For information about Scone Palace near Perth in Scotland, see Scone Palace by Jamie Jauncey (2015).

PS # 2. For information about Lord Mansfield, see Lord Mansfield: Justice in the Age of Reason by Norman S. Poser (2013, 2015).

PS # 3. For information about the architect Robert Adam, see The Genius of Robert Adam by Eileen Harris (2001) and Robert Adam by Richard John (2010).

PS # 4. For information about Dido Elizabeth Belle, see Belle: The True Story of Dido Belle by Paula Byrne (2014) and Dido Elizabeth belle: A Biography by Fergus Mason (2014)

PS # 5. For information about Dido, her father John Lindsay, and her mother Maria Belle in Pensacola, Florida, see Historical Pensacola by John J. Clune and Margo Stringfield (2009).

PS # 6. Since my review was written I have been in contact with English Heritage. They gave the following response to my list of flaws:

(A) David Martin made more than one painting of Lord Mansfield. The large painting mentioned in the text on page 10 is from 1776. The painting shown on page 39 (a smaller version) is from 1775, as stated in the caption. That is why both dates are correct! They say the fact that there are two paintings will be explained in the next edition of the book. 

(B) The dates of Elizabeth Murray are wrong. They say the correct dates will appear in the next edition of the book.

(C) The Grand Duke was the cousin and not the brother of the Tsar. They say this mistake will be corrected in the next edition of the book. The text does not claim that the Tsar was murdered in 1917, but it is implied. Any confusion can be avoided by adding the dates: "... following the Russian Revolution of 1917 and the murder of the Tsar in 1918."

 
***
Laura Houliston & Susan Jenkins,
Kenwood: The Iveagh Bequest,
English Heritage, 2014, 52 pages
 
*****
Portrait of William Murray, 1st Earl of Mansfield by David Martin

David Martin's painting of Lord Mansfield
 This is the small painting from 1775

*****




Scone Palace, Scotland (2015)


 


Scone Palace is written by the Scottish author Jamie Jauncey (born 1949) and published by Jarrold Publishing, a division of Hudson’s Media Ltd. It is a useful guidebook to an old and famous castle located beside the River Tay, just north of Perth, in Scotland. This review is based on the latest edition published in 2015.

[Please note: the name of the place is pronounced /sku:n/. It rhymes with “moon” and “soon.” It does not rhyme with “stone” and “bone.”]

The book is divided into three sections:

** Section one is about the history of Scone. The Palace and the family that has owned it for centuries are presented with text and illustrations.

** Section two is a tour the castle. Eleven rooms which are open to the public are presented with text and illustrations.

** Section three is about the grounds surrounding the palace. The major features of the grounds are presented with text and illustrations.

This slim volume is published in a large format (21 x 29.5 cm, i.e. the same as an A-4 page). It is well-written, well-organised, and well-illustrated. It is a quick read. It is also a good read, although there are a few minor flaws here and there, as I shall demonstrate below.

THE HISTORY OF THE PALACE
Scone plays an important role in the history of Scotland. It is the place where Scottish kings were crowned. In 1600 the family who owned the place was disgraced for an alleged conspiracy against James VI. As the author explains on page 5:

“Scone was taken from the Gowries and given to the king’s cup-bearer Sir David Murray of Gospetrie, as reward for his timely intervention in the affair. So Scone passed into the hands of the great family from which the Earls of Mansfield are descended.”

In the beginning of the nineteenth century, the third Earl of Mansfield decided to rebuild the medieval house as a gothic castle. During this long and expensive operation, Scone Palace was given the look it still has today.

Why visit Scone Palace? There are several reasons to come: # 1. Because of the art, architecture, and history that is connected with the place. # 2. Because of the people who lived here and the people who came to visit. # 3. Perhaps you want to take part in one of the many festivals that are celebrated here. # 4. Perhaps you simply want to relax and enjoy the beautiful surroundings.

William Murray, who later became the first Earl of Mansfield, was born here in 1705. Queen Victoria and Prince Albert visited in 1842. These are just two examples of important persons who are connected with this place.

MINOR FLAWS
As stated above, this is a useful guidebook to Scone Palace. Unfortunately, there are some minor flaws (I hope they will be corrected in the next edition of the book):

# 1. The third Earl of Mansfield decided to transform the medieval house into a gothic castle. For this project he hired the Scottish architect William Atkinson (1774/75-1839). When did the work begin and how long did it last? Three times we are told it began in 1803 (pp. 5, 9 and 15). On page 15 we are also told it took nine years and cost £ 60,000. But on page 11 the author says the work began in 1802. A website about Scottish architects confirms the time frame 1803-1812. The year 1802 that is mentioned on page 11 must be a misprint.

# 2. On page 10, Jauncey writes:
 
“The fifth Viscount Stormont … played host to the Old Pretender for three weeks at Scone in 1760, for which he was later fined and jailed along with his son David, the sixth Viscount.”

The year 1760 cannot be true, because the fifth Viscount died in 1731. The Old Pretender was in Scotland from 22 December 1715 until 5 February 1716 (in connection with the first Jacobite Rising). That is why I think the year 1760 must be a misprint for 1716.

# 3. The text about David continues on page 10:
 
“His younger brother James, meanwhile, had become one of the Young Pretender’s closest advisers in exile, being created Earl of Dunbar in 1721.”

James was indeed created Earl of Dunbar in 1721, but not by the Young Pretender, Charles Edward Stuart, who was born in 1720. The title was given by the Old Pretender, James Edward Stuart, who was born in 1688.

# 4. The Ambassador’s Room is presented on page 31. One of the items in this room is the famous painting of Lady Elizabeth and her cousin Dido Elizabeth Belle. According to the text and the caption, this painting is the work of Zoffany.

Previously, this painting was attributed to the German painter Johann Zoffany, but this idea has now been rejected. Perhaps it is the work of the Scottish painter David Martin who did a large painting of William Murray, the first Earl of Mansfield, around 1775 (a small version of this painting appears on page 29).

The painting of Elizabeth and Dido inspired an historical movie Belle which premiered at an international film festival in 2013; it was shown in theatres and released on DVD in 2014. This movie could and should have been mentioned in the latest version of the guidebook from 2015.



** The famous painting of Dido and Elizabeth.**

# 5. The Inner Hall is presented on page 32. One of the items in this room is an unusual clock which is described with the following words:

“One very unusual clock, made by Thomire of Paris, shows Father Time holding up a celestial globe on his right shoulder and a scythe in his left hand. The movement of Moinet is contained withing the globe.”

Two artists are mentioned here, but the author only provides their last names:

** Pierre-Philippe Thomire, 1751-1843

** Louis Moinet, 1768-1853

Thomire was a sculptor. Therefore it is unfortunate to say that the clock was “made” by him. It is more accurate to say that the item was designed by him. The clock within the globe was made by Moinet. In the last sentence, one word is missing. In addition, one word is misspelled. The last sentence should read:

“The movement of Moinet’s clock is contained within the globe.”

When I type the word “withing” on my computer, a red line appears under the word to tell me that something is wrong. Did Jauncey type his manuscript on a typewriter? Hardly. It seems the author and the book-editor ignored the warning about the misspelled word that the computer program must have given them.

# 6. The Douglas fir is named after David Douglas, who was born in the village of Scone and served as a gardener at Scone Palace for several years before crossing the Atlantic Ocean to explore North America and Hawaii where he died. On page 48 we are told he died in a terrible accident. The author says: “He was only 36 years old.” This cannot be true, since he was born in 1799 and died in 1834, as stated in the caption below his portrait. He was only 35 years old when he died. How can the author make a mistake like this? And how can the book-editor fail to see it and correct it?

# 7. The intriguing events surrounding the Stone of Scone are presented in the first section of the book. The stone is connected with the crowning of Scottish kings, but nobody knows how old it is or where it is from. It is probably more than one thousand years old. The author explains on page 6:

“In 1296 Edward I marched north and removed what he believed to be the Stone to Westminster… And there it remained for the next 700 years [except for] a brief but sensational disappearance in 1950, when a group of Scottish Nationalist students broke into Westminster Abbey on Christmas Day and spirited it back to Scotland. But after a couple of weeks it was returned to Westminster where it stayed until finally being brought to rest in Edinburgh Castle in 1996.”

On page 7 the author adds that the students left it “to be found by police at Arbroath Abbey in January 1951.”

Some of the dates mentioned in this report are true, but not all. The stone was found at Arbroath Abbey in April 1951 (not in January 1951) and was returned to Westminster Abbey in February 1952 (not a few weeks after the removal in December 1950).

The four young students are not named by Jauncey. Here are the names:

** Ian Hamilton (1925-2022)

** Gavin Vernon (1926-2004)

** Alan Stuart (1930-2019)

** Kay Matheson (1928-2013)

Ian Hamilton, who was the driving force behind the operation, wrote a book about the case. It was published in 1952 under the title No Stone Unturned. A second version appeared in 1992 under the title The Taking of the Stone of Destiny. A third version was published in 2008 with the title Stone of Destiny.

The third edition of the book was a tie-in with the movie about the case: Stone of Destiny (shown in theatres in 2008, released on DVD in 2009).

Neither Hamilton’s book nor the movie from 2008 is mentioned by Jauncey. I think it is a shame they are not mentioned.

# 8. Most of the text is written in the third person, but there are two notable exceptions: the introduction on page 1 - “Welcome to Scone Palace” - is written in the first person. It is nice to be welcomed by a personal message from the owner of the palace, but I think the message should be signed by the person who bids us welcome: the Earl of Mansfield. Why is there no signature at the end of the message?

The epilogue on the last page - “Our Valued Visitors” - is also written in the first person. Once again the name of the author is missing. When we have a personal message, I think it should end with the name of the person who wrote it.

All chapters between introduction and epilogue are written in the third person, as they should be, because the book is written by Jamie Jauncey. However, there is a slip-up on page 5 where the text says:
 
“HRH Prince Charles, the Prince of Wales visited in 2010 and we were honoured by Her Majesty the Queen accompanied by HRH the Duke of Edinburgh during her Diamond jubilee year in 2011.”

The word “we” does not belong in this context. The proper wording would be something like: “… the Murray family was honoured…”

CONCLUSION
Who is the target audience of this book? I can think of two or three groups. If you are planning a visit to Scone Palace, this book is a useful tool to prepare your visit. If you have already been there, this book will be a wonderful souvenir of your visit.

Perhaps you are an armchair traveller. If you are interested in the history of the modern world, in particular the history of art and architecture, I am sure you will enjoy this slim volume about Scone Palace in Scotland.

PS # 1. Lady Elizabeth and Dido were raised by Lord and Lady Mansfield at Kenwood House in Hampstead, just north of London. For information about this place, see the following item:
 
Kenwood: 
The Iveagh Bequest 
by Laura Houliston and Susan Jenkins 
(English Heritage, 2014)

PS # 2. For information about William Murray, the first Earl of Mansfield, see the following item:
 
Lord Mansfield: 
Justice in the Age of Reason 
by Norman Poser 
(2013) (2015)
 
PS # 3. For details about the Stone of Destiny, see the following item: 
 
Steven Brocklehurst, 
"The students who stole the Stone of Destiny," 
BBC News, 
6 October 2022


*****
Jamie Jauncey,
Scone Palace,
Jarrold Publishing, 2015, 56 pages
 
*****