LADY ARCHIBALD.
After the marriage nobody seems to have been able to find sufficiently
superlative expressions in which to convey their appreciation of the
Princess’s conduct at the wedding. Lord Waldegrave stated that she
distinguished herself “by a most decent and prudent behaviour, and
the King, notwithstanding his aversion to his son, behaved to her not
only with great politeness, but with the appearance of cordiality
and affection.” The aged Duchess of Marlborough, who was by no means
in love with the Royal Family, said of her “that she always appeared
good-natured and civil to everybody.”
While Sir Robert Walpole paid her a greater compliment than all when
he observed how she had conquered the gruff old King and attracted her
husband’s esteem, he declared that there were “circumstances which
spoke strongly in favour of brains which had but seventeen years to
ripen.” It may be said here that the Princess’s future conduct fully
justified these favourable comments. She had indeed a most difficult
and painful part to play, considering the state of affairs which
existed between the Prince of Wales, her husband, and his father, and
this at the very threshold of her married life was greatly complicated
by a most disagreeable episode which ought never to have occurred.
This was a dispute between the Queen and Frederick as to whether Lady
Archibald Hamilton, the lady of thirty-five with ten children, who had
obtained a strong ascendency over the Prince, should be appointed one
of the ladies-in-waiting upon the Princess.
The Queen very properly argued that scandal had linked the Prince’s
name with this lady’s, and it was invidious to appoint her to
his household, but to this, of course, the Prince retorted very
improperly--but _que voulez-vous_ with such a father?--that “Lady
Suffolk had been appointed to his mother’s household under similar
circumstances.” Lady Archibald Hamilton, however, had her way in the
end. It was arranged by the astute Queen Caroline that only three
ladies-in-waiting on the Princess of Wales should be appointed,
leaving Lady Archibald out, and that the fourth should be left to the
Princess’s choice. The Queen, no doubt, had a pretty shrewd idea who
the fourth lady-in-waiting would be, but was anxious to avoid the
responsibility of her appointment; as a matter of fact, later events
point to Lady Archibald really being a creature of Queen Caroline’s.
Frederick’s influence over his girl-wife very soon became apparent
and was very natural. Lady Archibald’s influence over the Prince
also soon became a patent fact, with the result that may be easily
imagined, “the Hamilton woman,” as she was called, filled the vacant
fourth place among the ladies-in-waiting. Not only was this piece of
_finesse_ easily accomplished by her, but she at once began to exert a
strong influence over the seventeen-year-old Princess of Wales, which
was not to be wondered at. This influence was not exerted for the
young Princess’s benefit by any means; it would almost seem that Lady
Archibald set herself to work to make this pretty young girl ridiculous
in the eyes of the people. Augusta was wholly ignorant of the customs
of the country, and of course very easily led by such a person of
experience as Lady Archibald.
Under the advice of this lady she was persuaded to walk abroad in
Kensington Gardens, preceded by two gentlemen ushers, a chamberlain
leading her by the hand, a page in attendance on her train, and the
rear brought up by ladies-in-waiting, among whom it is pretty certain
the instigator of this absurdity was _not_ present.
The Queen is said to have met this pageant in Kensington Gardens and
to have burst into peals of laughter, which very naturally surprised
the child Princess. Queen Caroline, however, enlightened her there and
then, and compared her to a tragedy queen.
To whose interest was it that this pretty young Princess should be made
ridiculous in the eyes of the English people, upon whom she had made a
favourable first impression?
Had there not also been another Princess of Wales who had made an
equally favourable impression upon the English people and who now was
Queen? Had not this lady reigned unrivalled from 1714 to that year
1736, for her daughters were never attractive enough to become popular
favourites, and they knew that fact very well and resented it.
Is it not a very plain conclusion to draw, that in this making Augusta
absurd in the people’s eyes, Lady Archibald was simply acting under
orders from the Queen, who feared her own fading attractions--she
was very fat--were likely to suffer by comparison with the youthful
radiance of the new Princess of Wales?
In addition, Lady Archibald introduced into the Prince’s household as
many of her husband’s relatives as she possibly could, so that his
apartments were said to be peopled by Hamiltons. But despite the evil
influence of this woman, the Prince and Princess of Wales greatly
gained in popularity after their marriage, and very uncomplimentary
comparisons were drawn by the public between the affability and
courtesy of the young Prince and his bride, and the distinctly
phlegmatic German manners of the King. The Queen had always made
herself agreeable to the people; she was far too wise to do anything
else.
Within a few weeks of her marriage the Princess was witness of a
fight in a theatre for the first time, when the celebrated riot of
the footmen in Drury Lane took place, these brothers of the shoulder
knot and long cane objecting to be shut out of the gallery to which
they claimed to be admitted free, and emphasizing their objections by
storming the doors of the theatre and starting a free fight within, in
which several persons were injured. In the sequel, many of the footmen
were marched off to Newgate.
At this time, too, the great William Pitt--“Cornet Pitt,” and
afterwards Earl of Chatham--made his first speech in the House of
Commons, in seconding the Address of Congratulation to the King on
the marriage of his son, which address was moved by Lyttleton. So
laudatory was Pitt of the virtues of the son that he mortally offended
the father, who never forgave him, and as an instalment of future spite
deprived him of his commissions of Cornet.
But little George the King had other fish to fry; he was due at Hanover
on the 29th May, and whether Sir Robert Walpole approved or not he
intended to go, and keep his tryst with Madame Walmoden and the other
members of her select circle. From the King’s point of view it was high
time he went to look after his interests in this direction, as there
was a certain Captain von der Schulemburg about in connexion with whom
a rope ladder was discovered dangling from Madame Walmoden’s bedroom
window during the King’s visit. But George had made up his mind to go,
and go he would, and did.
Sir Robert Walpole, however, by way of asserting his authority in some
shape or form, got him to take his brother Horace with him as Minister
in Attendance.
But before departing the King appointed the Queen as his Regent, as
usual ignoring his eldest son; at the same time he sent a message
to Frederick intimating that wherever the Queen was, there would be
provided apartments for him and the Princess. The Prince of Wales very
naturally resented this order, which practically constituted him and
his wife prisoners in whichever of the Royal palaces the Queen happened
to be living. The fact of the Queen being appointed Regent was also a
subject of bitter discord between the mother and son, creating a gap
which widened day by day.