Frederick, Prince of Wales, the ‘Court’ of Leicester House and the ‘Patriot’ Opposition to Walpole, c.1733–1742 (original) (raw)

2016, The Court Historian

The character and reputation of Frederick, prince of Wales, have long divided historians. His apparently piecemeal efforts at opposition have been dismissed as lacking in focus, while his mercurial character and early demise have left him difficult to assess. The aim of this article is to attempt once more to reappraise the Prince both as a man at the head of a specific political interest but also more broadly as the symbolic figurehead of a wider patriot movement within society. Through analysis of the contemporary press, and of some of the key members of the Prince's own household, this essay will argue that Prince Frederick was more than just a figurehead for the patriots, if impeded by circumstances and occasionally distracted by his own protean tendencies.* O n  January , the earl of Egmont recorded in his diary how he had dined with Mr Newams (or Newings) 'the Shropshire prophet'. Newams regaled him with the thirty-one occasions on which he claimed to have seen Sir Robert Walpole to impart his visions to him and how he was well thought of not only by Walpole but also by the archbishop of Canterbury and the bishops of Durham and Oxford.  Newams' latest revelation was that England was on the point of being invaded, but that the Pretender and/or his son would be defeated and killed in a great struggle in the forest of Delamere in Cheshire.  Egmont's impression of Newams was hardly enthusiastic but Egmont himself was not averse to giving vent to alarmist predictions. Throughout the later s and early s his diary was punctuated by expectations of rebellions and riots. There was, of course, rebellion in , and in February and March  London was rocked by seismic shifts that sent its denizens scurrying up to Hampstead and Highgate from which to observe more comfortably the anticipated end of the world.  Newam's great battle in Delamere did not transpire, and the world did not end on  April  as had been predicted in response to the London earthquake.  And yet, these details are reminders of the turbulent undercurrents in society in the mid-eighteenth century and offer * An earlier version of this piece was given at the conference 'Protean Patriots? New Research on the Patriot Opposition to Sir Robert Walpole' held at Hampton Court in June . I am grateful to the organizers, Oliver Cox and Jennifer Scammell, for inviting me to speak at that event and to Nigel Aston and the anonymous reviewers for their comments.  John Potter, Edward Chandler, and Thomas Secker, respectively. Unlike Potter, Secker (who later was translated to Canterbury) was deeply suspicious of Leicester House. See James Lees, 'The Religious Retinue of Leicester House: Chaplains of Frederick Louis, Prince of Wales, -', Journal for Eighteenth Century Studies  ().  The (Old) Pretender, James Edward Stuart, only son of James II; the son referred to here was his heir, Charles Edward Stuart, the Young Pretender. Historical Manuscripts Commission: Manuscripts of the Earl of Egmont [hereafter HMC Egmont], Diary of the First Earl of Egmont… (), vol. iii, pp. -.  Patrick Dillon, The Much-Lamented Death of Madam Geneva: The Eighteenth Century Gin Craze (London, ), pp. -.  The quakes did, though, inspire John Wesley to compose hymns in response to the events, and also inspired a series of articles in the press from various viewpoints attributing the earthquakes to both natural and supernatural causes. N. Rogers, Mayhem: PostWar Crime and Violence in Britain, - (New Haven, ), passim.