McDonald 1
Shannon McDonald
Dr. Lindenauer
Introduction to History
May 3, 2011
Gendered Expectations
There is a sketch of Georgiana Cavendish from 1784; she is sitting in a saloon seated
comfortably like a man in britches would having a man shave her beard. The name of the
sketch is Political Shaver1. This is the typical political satire that plagued Georgiana and
promoted her negative image throughout the Westminster Election of 1784 due to her
unwomanly and improper approach to canvassing for Whig Party member Charles James
Fox. The Westminster Election of 1784 was a unique election for eighteenth century
England as it was highly spirited and full of scandal. Charles James Fox, was radically
campaigning as a ‘Man of the People’, while his opponent William Pitt of the Tory party
kept with tradition by supporting the crown. With two drastically different standpoints it
would be no surprise this was the grounds for the scandalous campaign, but it was
Georgiana’s approach that brought about scandal and outrage. She canvassed heavily for
Fox even though he was not a family member of hers, a rarity for a prestigious woman in
the eighteenth century. The manner of canvassing was usually at a prestigious event or
hosting a smaller function such as dinner or tea to gain political ties. Thus the Duchess’
approach to political campaigning included more than the norm which left the media
mocking her sexuality, femininity and social behavior.
1
Stephens, Frederic George; George, Mary Dorothy, The Political Shaver, Catalogue of Political and Personal
Satires in the Department of Prints and Drawings in the British Museum, BM Satires, London, 6577.
McDonald 2
The Duchess’ canvassing included time away from home used to solicit votes for
Charles James Fox. Not only was it improper for the Duchess to talk to commoners like they
were her peers but she was highly criticized for leaving home and momentarily dismissing
the duty of producing an heir, which she had failed to do so far. To the general public and
the cynical media, she appeared irresponsible, and morally loose.
The Duchess was often described as a charismatic character of the ton. 2 Notorious
for her gambling and staying up late with the boys for drinks, she further stepped out of her
gender role by taking on an extremely active role in the campaign that was commonly
associated with men. She added her personality to the campaign rather than just creating
political ties for Fox. While the lower-class enjoyed her fresh personality and availability to
talk to them personally, the upper-class and media snubbed their noses at her actions that
tarnished the prestige and propriety of the women in the ton.
The ridicule discouraged to the Duchess but her personality aimed to please and
her social role as a woman remained intact regardless of media’s portrayal. While her
canvassing was a bit more extreme in regards to other women in her era it was not earthshattering, merely an offensive act that her social group and the media disapproved of and
found entertainment in. However, it was not a surprise that she was more active in the
election than most women as the Duchess was an influential and charismatic leading lady
2
The British Aristocracy, a select group of 500-600 people were referred to as the ton. The ton lived lavish lives
with multiple homes around England and shamelessly gambled. They set the style in London as much of general
public tried desperately to mimic their styles. Georgiana, the Duchess of Devonshire was known greatly for her
fashion and it even started riots when she wore a rare Ostrich feather in her hair that she had to outlaw them.
Thus, an example of how influential the ton was.
McDonald 3
of the ton. She was a fresh face compared to the stiff and prudish family she had married
into.3 Everywhere the Duchess went she brought her own personality.
Georgiana was an example of moderate deviance in the eighteenth century yet was
often portrayed as revolutionary or a great trespasser in the political satire and memories
from the late eighteenth century. It is significant that her ostracized political involvement
was not as innovative as portrayed because the idea that she was ground-breaking did not
hold true to her genuine character. She was a woman of her time and it is important to
understand her in her own context rather than the media’s point of views as well as the
opinions of others. Although Georgiana Cavendish encountered great ridicule during the
Westminster Election of 1784 because she deviated from her expected social and gender
roles, evidence concerning different episodes in her life as well as common political
practices of the late eighteenth century suggests that her deviance was not as revolutionary
as media portrayed it.
This paper will unearth different reasons why Georgiana, the Duchess of
Devonshire, was the recipient of such harsh ridicule during the Westminster Election of
1784. It will look into gender roles applied to women in England in the late eighteenth
century as well as decipher expected gender roles based on social status. All attempts will
be made to keep Georgiana in her own context rather than a contemporary viewpoint. The
question of media’s influence on society will be posed. Because Georgiana was in the public
eye, she was the target of gossip, but how much of it proved true and how did she deal with
it? Overall, this paper will question social and gender roles of the eighteenth century in
3
The Cavendish family was a family of prestige who intended to keep that image. They expected Georgiana to
follow them in every opinion. She was so devoted to being as close to them as possible that her voice changed to
their odd “Cavendish Drawl”.
McDonald 4
attempts to expose the rationale for opinions about the upper-class in regards to
Georgiana’s participation in the Westminster Election of 1784.
Phyllis Deutsch’s Moral Trespass in Georgian London: Gaming, Gender, and Electoral
Politics in the Age of George III addresses the growing emphasis on private morals and
virtues in Georgian London that were significant during the Westminster election of 1794.
Lavish gaming habits of both upper-class men and women were frowned upon. She
explains that the late Eighteenth Century was a time of political awareness in London and
by the late eighteenth century, “The drama, exclusivity and emotionally of aristocratic play
had come to exemplify the private vice and public irresponsibility of the ruling class”4. The
people of Great Britain were skeptical of who truly deserved their trust and who did not
based on their frivolity or frugal lifestyles. She addresses that Charles James Fox, Whig
candidate running for office in the election was a gamester, thus his vigorous and lavish
habit of gambling often meant he, “lacked the ready cash or capital to back their habit”5.
Thus, in a time when morals and virtue became so significant, who would want a man
unreliable with his own money to make choices with their nation’s money?
Along with moral trespasses, Fox was associating himself with what was considered
a woman’s hobby which further tarnished his image as a strong and reliable man.
Furthermore, Georgiana, Duchess of Devonshire, known for her trivial gaming ways,
fervently supported Fox. Deutsch explicates that Georgiana’s passionate support of Fox led
to greater ridicule of Fox because he was being, “Unmanned by corrupt female influence”
and that, “Fox, Relinquishing self-control and personal responsibility at the gaming table,
4
Phyllis Deutch, “Moral Trespass in Georgian London: Gaming, Gender, and Electoral Politics in the Age of George
III,” The Historic Journal 39, no.3 (1996):638.
5
Deutch, 640.
McDonald 5
compromised his claim to masculinity and its public, political benefits.”6 The author further
claims that the late eighteenth century saw correlation between gamestresses, prostitutes
and public political women, two of three descriptions Georgiana, Fox’s closest associate in
the Election of 1784, exemplified. As a result, in an era where morality was the key to
public approval, Fox did not possess the attributes the public craved. Moreover, as Fox lost
his masculinity and approval, Georgiana lost her femininity as she was branded masculine
in regards to her fervent and manly canvassing. Deutsch speculates that although Fox won
the election, that this swap of gender roles and general humiliation in regards to the
tarnishing of his name and party during the campaign led him to only join in on politics
sporadically after. As for Georgiana, Deutsch explains, she left the forefront of politics and
was forever remembered for her misconduct and immorality in regards to stepping out of
place as an upper-class woman in the Westminster Election of 1784 due to political satire.
The authors approach on the Georgian Era’s growing emphasis on morality and
virtues of the upper-class explains why Georgiana was subject to great ridicule. Georgiana’s
generous gaming habits and minor gender and social role discrepancies were emphasized
much greater because they were magnified in 1784. Deutsch’s speculation that Georgiana
had an abrupt end to her political participation after the election appears to be a half truth.
Considering Georgiana was a Duchess, her husband would be involved with politics for the
rest of his life. His involvement meant she would be connected with politics to some degree.
She may have pulled back the emphasis on her political involvement after her scandalous
contribution during the election but certainly would still have some associations in the
British political sphere.
6
Deutch, 647.
McDonald 6
Amelia Rauser’s “The Butcher Kissing Duchess of Devonshire: Between Caricature
and Allegory in 1784” further addresses the medias attack against Georgiana’s trespass as
an upper-class woman in the Eighteenth Century regarding the Westminster Election.
Rauser examines the public outcry by means of pamphlets, essays, prints and ballads that,
“debated the Duchess’s virtues and improprieties”7. Her main focus is on a wide array of
political satire from the election that shows the Duchess kissing the lower social class
butchers as she canvasses votes for Charles James Fox. She acknowledges that the political
atmosphere was changing and that private morality and virtue were important aspects of
candidates in the 1784 election. Thus, Georgiana’s out going role in canvassing for Fox was
ridiculed because she was not seen as virtuous with her extravagant gaming and alcohol
intake and a publicized political life similar to men. Rauser suggests that the Foxites8
formally prominent in the English political world were attempting to win votes by
illustrating that they were, “The choice of the people and were opposed to the despotism of
the monarch.”9 The author addresses the idea that Fox’s campaign that claimed him a “man
of the people” made Georgiana the woman of the people, in other words, a prostitute.
Images sketched of Georgiana kissing butchers, lower class men, expressed that she was
sexually open to people; an immoral person in the time of great emphasis on morality. A
commentator of her time, William Combe, handled the Duchess’ frivolity with gaming and
ardent political stance by claiming, “[She was] not acting more like the examplar of
feminine virtue that she could have been to British public.” He further admonished, “[She
is] the example of Female Error which are a glaring disgrace to the times wherein we live
7
Amelia Rauser, “The Buthcer-Kissing Duchess of Devonshire: Between Caricature and Allegory in 1784”,
Eighteenth-Century Studies 36, no.1 (Fall,2002): 23.
8
The Foxes such as candidate Charles James Fox were often referred to as the Foxites.
9
Rauser,25. In 1784 the general public, fed up with taxes, was begging to turn on the monarch.
McDonald 7
in.”10 The author explains that people such as Combe and the general public held the fear of,
“female influence” much stronger than the fear of monarchial influence that Fox was
originally counting on to lead him to victory.
Rauser examines political satire of the Duchess taking on a masculine and immoral
role claiming, “In fondling the butcher, the Duchess of Devonshire is not only a sexual
aggressor but is made sexually available herself.”11 The satire regarding the Duchess
exemplified that she had crossed the line of appropriateness for a woman of her class.
Rauser claims that like a woman of the Eighteenth Century, amidst all the ridicule,
Georgiana, the Duchess of Devonshire, retreated from politics after the Westminster
Election of 1784 without challenging the public. Although the Duchess retreated, Rauser
acknowledges that not until years later would women become as involved in politics as the
Duchess had in 1784. Accordingly, the Duchess was a woman of her time by means of
retreating from the political world without a fight. While she left an impact that would
inspire more contemporary women with her intense passion and involvement in politics,
she herself was by no means as radical as the media had portrayed.
Likewise, Amanda Foreman’s interpretation of the Duchess’ ridicule throughout the
Westminster Election addresses that Georgiana was not necessarily a revolutionary figure
of her era because in many ways she still acted as women of her time. However Foreman
states that Georgiana undeniably overstepped several boundaries of upper-class women
and could be viewed as innovative today. Foreman shatters the misconception that there
was a taboo on female participation in politics explaining there was only an immense
10
11
Rauser, 30.
Rauser, 23.
McDonald 8
amount of hypocrisy and double standards. Upper-class women actually supported family
members who were campaigning because if men directly involved with the operation did it
was interference. Foreman explains that one reason for the Duchess’ ridicule was that, “She
brought her own Personality to the campaign in an era where the only women who had
public personas were actresses and courtesans” and, “She had appeared as herself and not
as a sacrifice to female duty.”12 Thus, while women had obligations to campaigns, the
Duchess, neither a family member, actress or courtesan took part in something the public
or her tight knit upper class group did not expect her to.
Images of the Duchess kissing lower class men, displaying masculine features and
performing sexual acts demonstrate the nature of the Duchess’ ridicule. People were
unhappy because the Duchess appeared to overstep boundaries therefore; they attacked
her with the greatest insults of her time, sexually open, masculine and unaware of her place
in society. Foreman explicates that although, “Georgiana was exhausted and demoralized”
as well as, “…a source of much coarse humor in the press” she carried on with her
canvassing and did not challenge the public about the satire and ridicule. A contemporary
view of Georgiana, the Duchess of Devonshire, would indicate that she did not care what
people thought, she was independent and would do as she pleased. Foreman explains that
in reality Georgiana’s personality aimed to please.13 Consequently, Georgiana continued to
12
Amanda Foreman, Georgiana Duchess of Devonshire, (New York: Random House,1998) 153.
Georgiana’s childhood was dominated by her father’s sickness that made him temperamental and pessimistic. As
a result her parents would travel a lot with her mother’s attempt to make him happy. Georgiana has always been
the favorite of her mother and father therefore, they suddenly decided Georgiana should not accompany them on
a trip to Italy she felt as if her parents had left her behind as a punishment. Foreman writes, “As a result, Georgiana
became acutely self conscious and anxious to please.” She trained herself to anticipate the expectations of adults
at a young age. See Amanda Foreman, Georgiana Duchess of Devonshire, (New York: Random House, 1998).
13
McDonald 9
canvass in attempts to please her husband’s family, the Cavendish’s.14 Moreover, a
respectable married lady of the eighteenth century in London was expected to follow
through with her commitments to maintain respectability of her spouses’ families’ name.
Foreman’s depiction of Georgiana as a woman of her era puts the true personality of
her to the forefront. She may have overstepped a few boundaries but it was really the
media that created her into an extreme deviant. The author’s method of presenting
Georgiana for who she truly was, brings sincerity and likeable qualities. While it is obvious
that the author appreciates Georgiana and wants to do justice for her, her use of
correspondence between Georgiana and her mother is truthful and reveals her good
qualities as well as her faults.
Elaine Chalus’, “Elite Women, Social Politics, and the Political World of LateEighteenth Century England” touches on the idea that women were involved in English
Politics in a less direct way than historians typically look at it. She explains that women
often saw themselves and were seen by men in their circles as, “Functioning members of a
political world where social situations were frequently used for political ends. For example,
women would often host tea’s and gradually move on to dinners to initiate contact with
men their husbands wished to conspire with in their political campaigns and gains. Chalus,
also explores the idea that since many historians do not place emphasis on what women’s
role was in politics and more on how they changed politics overtime, “devalues those
aspects of women’s political involvement which are not immediately direct or
14
She had canvassed for Charles James Fox because he belonged to the Whig party, the party of choice for the
Cavendish family.
McDonald 10
quantifiable”15 She dismisses the concept that she feels too many historians take on about
ridicule in regards to female participation in politics explaining, “The rise of polite society
encouraged more mingling of the sexes in a wider range of social activities and in a
correspondingly expanding variety of social venues.”16 Thus, the conclusion Chalus comes
to suggests that Georgiana’s canvassing was not quite the scandalous situation the media
portrayed, she was merely a public figure that was mocked.
The political satire that was ever present during Georgiana’s participation in the
Westminster Election of 1794 gives a direct look into the general public’s opinion of her
and members of the ton at the time. It is clear with the sheer ridicule Georgiana faces in
these sketches that her zealous action in the campaign was unwelcomed and deemed unfit
to her gender and social class. While these images depicted extreme deviance, one could
easily find images of ridicule relating to Georgiana and other women of the time that
attacked them for extravagance. Since satire was readily available on any upper-class figure
of Europe in the late eighteenth century it suggests that Georgiana was just another victim
of the media.
Georgiana’s public displays of affection for the butchers, the lower working class, of
England are portrayed in multiple sketches that were made popular throughout the
Westminster campaign when she fervently canvassed for Fox. In the sketch titled, “A
Certain Duchess Kissing Old Swelter-in-Grease Butcher for his Vote”, the Duchess is
scandalously close to a man unfit to her social class. She is kissing him in his butcher shop
as his arms are wrapped around her in a disreputable embrace. In another sketch, “Female
15
Elaine Chalus, “Elite Women, Social Politics, and the Political World of Late Eighteenth-Century England,” The
Historic Journal 43, no.3 (September, 2000):674.
16
Chalus, 673.
McDonald 11
Influence”17 she along with other upper-class ladies is offering kisses for a vote in favor of
Fox. As a woman of the ton she was expected to communicate with men within the elite
group and only communicate with those beneath her social status if they were attending to
her. Thus, placing her in the butchers shop, somewhere were many Duchess’ or even
member of the ton would not dare to go and participating in an intimate moment with the
lower class was an insult. It suggested that the Duchess did not understand her place and
went too far in political affairs. This was often the attitude to the Duchess’ participation in
the election.
While women especially family members were often a political tool in helping to
make connections and get the word out for votes the Duchess took it a step further. Her
passion for her friend Charles Fox’s campaign led her to take to the streets and even the
back alleys of England in attempts to score more votes for the Whigs. While Fox did win it
came with a price for her. Like many prestigious women of her time anything she did would
be scrutinized by the media.18 Therefore, Georgiana’s situation was not unique to her; the
media attacked any public figure in the eighteenth century Europe. Thus, her willingness to
walk into somewhere such as a butcher shop or strike up a conversation with men in pubs
led the media to twist her political actions into suggestive behaviors. Instead of looking at
her interaction with the general public as an advance in the usually stuffy political world, it
was met with great tensions claiming this was not her place. However, this scrutiny was
17
Stephens, Frederic George; George, Mary Dorothy, Female Influence , Catalogue of Political and Personal Satires
in the Department of Prints and Drawings in the British Museum, London, BM Satires, 6493.
18
Another highly scandalized woman of the eighteenth century was the often misunderstood Queen of France,
Marie Antoinette. Political satire that surrounded her was sexually explicit and attacked her morality and
femininity much like Georgiana. See Antonia Frasier, Marie Antoinette, The Journey,(New York: First Anchor Books,
2001).
McDonald 12
not new to Georgiana, considering she had been facing it for years in regards to other
matters.
In the satirical print of 1776 “Ladies Coop19”, years before the election Georgiana
was scrutinized for, a rather feminine thing was attacked, her hair. She is drawn sitting on
the floors of her carriage with her friend because her hair is too tall; they are compactly in
the carriage as if they were in a cage hence the word coop. Her delicate feminine facial
features are prominent as well as her rather girly apparel adorned with flowers and the
once scandalous Ostrich feather in shades of yellow, purple and pink. Another image
similar to the “Ladies Coop” is titled, “Modern Female Taste.”20 The image suggested that it
was the Duchess without claiming it outright. She was perched on a carriage with high
springs to hold her outrageously high hair that was adorned with a hat holding enormous
ostrich feathers and elaborate ribbons. It gives the idea that her hair was so ridiculously
highly structured that the carriage needed extra support to carry it. These satires are dated
1776, a period where Georgiana was already well known, but years before her scrutinized
involvement in the Westminster Election of 1784. It was a quiet moment in her life as she
had just been married and was getting used to the life of the ton. Her image of femininity is
intact in 1776 because she was playing the acceptable role for her gender, but she is still
scrutinized. Her high social class always faced ridicule as the media outnumbered the ton.
Whether it was alleged gender role discrepancies’ or lavish behaviors and dress, Georgiana,
like all royalty was not deviating quite as much as portrayed. Instead, she was a victim of
19
Stephens, Frederic George; George, Mary Dorothy, Catalogue of Political and Personal Satires in the Department
of Prints and Drawings in the British Museum, London, BM Satires, 5373.
20
M. Darly, Modern Female Taste, Catalogue of Political and Personal Satires in the Department of Prints and
Drawings in the British Museum, London, BM Satires, 5375.
McDonald 13
the media, like royalty of Great Britain, such as Catherine Middleton faces contemporarily.
Anything the upper class does and says has always been analyzed and distorted. Georgiana
was not the first women to come across nor would she be the last. Therefore, these images
merely depict the media’s ability to distort who a person truly was. While you can take
ideas from political satire of what Georgiana was like, it cannot be taken seriously or
literally as it was meant to insult and entertain, not be truthful.
Accordingly, looking at primary sources of Georgiana can give one the idea that she
was quite a radical figure in the Westminster Election of 1784. Looking critically at these
images as well as analyses of Georgiana’s participation in the election it is clear that she
was not a radical political figure they draw her out to be. She could have received this
ridicule due to many factors. Her ability to bring her own character to the public eye was
not uncommon for women of the time but her social class deemed it unfit. On the other
hand, ridicule could have surrounded her merely because she was a public figure.
Considering the way we see public figures warped in tabloids today, it is not difficult to
believe that they would warp her image as well, truthful or not. Georgiana Cavendish’s
participation in the Westminster Election of 1784 brought her ridicule in regards to her
sexuality, femininity and social behavior. Thus, her deviance appeared extreme but may
have not been.