Tsar Alexander II of Russia. Assassinations and Assignations - Cat or Rat? The Tsar with many lives and loves

In this brilliant article with a twist at the end, Helen Saker-Parsons tells us the story of the various assassination attempts on 19th century Russian ruler Tsar Alexander II. And his compelling and complicated love life – or lives…

Historically, it is a bear that symbolizes the Russian Imperial Court. But for Alexander II, Tsar of Russia from 1855 to 1881, there are more suitable creature comparisons. His was a reign marked by assassination attempts and sexual assignations. He appeared to have the many lives of a cat but was also referred to as a rat – a love rat. For though it was customary for imperial rulers to take mistresses, Alexander II appeared to move beyond what was acceptable, even for a Tsar.

But has history misjudged his sexual misdemeanors? Or could it be argued that it was his awareness that as a cat his lives were not infinite which pushed him towards his love-rat behavior?

Tsar Alexander II, circa 1865.

Attacks on a ruler

Alexander II oversaw a period of upheaval and change in imperialist Russia. Nick-named ‘the liberator,’ it is the emancipation of the serfs for which he is most renowned. But how the country adapted to change was to leave the Tsar vulnerable, with enemies amongst both the radical reformers and conservative factions. Alexander survived several attempts on his life, firstly from lone assassins and then by the Nihilist group, Narodnaya Volya [People’s Will]. His first near-miss he later referred to “as the event of April 4 1866.” On this date the elbow of Dimitry Karakozov was reportedly nudged as he aimed his revolver at the Tsar leaving the Summer Garden in St Petersburg. When the Tsar questioned the captured wannabe assassin as to what he wanted, the latter apparently replied: “nothing.” During the 1867 World Fair, Polish immigrant Antoni Berezowski attacked Alexander’s carriage but his pistol misfired and hit a horse instead. On April 20 1879, Alexander was out walking when he spotted an armed man, 33 year old former school teacher, Alexander Soloviev, approaching. The Tsar fled, running in a zigzag pattern so that all five of  Soloviev’s bullets missed him.

The People’s Will was founded in 1879 with the principal policy of killing the Tsar. In November their initial attempt to bomb his train route at three points failed. The train diverted from the first point; the dynamite failed to ignite at the second as it did at the third – when a tunnel dug to the track from a rented apartment passed through sandy soil and flooded. On the evening of February 5, 1880, one of their members, employed as a stoker at the Winter Palace, set off a charge in the guard’s rest room aimed to coincide with the Tsar and his family gathering to eat in the dining room above. Eleven people were killed and a further thirty wounded but the Tsar and his family were not amongst the casualties, having fortuitously delayed their meal. Poor time-keeping saved Alexander on The People’s Will’s third attempt when one of their terrorists turned up too late to blow up a bridge over the Catherine Canal which the Tsar was set to cross. The fourth attempt was abandoned when the Tsar changed his travel plans thus avoiding the road that had been mined. For their fifth effort The People’s Will returned to tunneling and rented an apartment from which to burrow and bomb one of Alexander’s frequent haunts. But the terrorist group failed to represent everybody’s will and one of their neighbors denounced them.

Alexander II had survived eight times and a cat is known to have nine lives. That eventually an attempt on his life should be successful seemed an accepted fact both by Alexander and his contemporaries. The British Prime Minister, Benjamin Disraeli, had remarked in 1874 that the Tsar always looked sad questioning “Whether it is satiety, or the loneliness of despotism, or fear of a violent death, I know not” and Peter Kropotkin describes the events of March 13, 1881 ‘the tragedy developed with the unavoidable fatality of one of Shakespeare’s dramas.’ On this Sunday, Alexander was travelling his usual route when a bomb was thrown under his carriage. He alighted to inspect the damage and console the wounded Cossacks who accompanied him. A second, as it happened suicidal, terrorist, Ignatei Grinevitski, seized the opportunity to throw another bomb; this time with more success. The Tsar’s legs were blown off by the blast and chunks of his flesh, combined with that of others caught in the blast, littered the lying snow. The dying emperor was taken by sleigh to the Winter Palace. His mutilated body was met by members of his family. His grandson, who later became Tsar Nicholas II and was to meet a violent demise himself, described that “there were big red spots on the carpet - when they had carried my grandfather up the stairs, blood from the terrible wounds he had suffered from the explosion poured out.” Alexander’s body was taken to his quarters, passed the secret passageway, which led down to another series of rooms. It was the presence of these and his mistress and children housed there which gained him the reputation of a rat.

A history of lovers

Alexander II had many admirers, not least Queen Victoria, whom he first met in 1839, when both were barely out of their teens. She wrote in her diary: ‘I really am quite in love with the Grand Duke; he is a dear, delightful young man.’ During his month-long visit to England the two went on horse rides in Windsor, attended balls at Buckingham Palace and even spent half an hour alone behind closed curtains in the royal box at the theatre. But Alexander’s father, Tsar Nicholas I, feared a marriage would result in his son having to give up the Russian throne to become British Prince Consort. He ordered him to Germany where a more suitable suitor awaited; writing: ‘Back to Darnstadt. Don’t be a milksop.’ The parting was not without emotion and Alexander left Victoria his prized dog, Kazbek, as a leaving present. They were not to meet again until 1874 by which time Victoria was dismayed by his changed appearance and openly critical of his indiscretions.

Alexander II’s subsequent marriage to the German Princess – who became known as Maria Alexandrovna following their wedding in St Petersburg in April 1841 – was initially a happy one and she bore him eight children. Alexander’s virility was proven and there were rumors of other offspring; including twin girls born to the British Ambassador’s wife. But it was also the death of his children that reminded him of the fragility of life. His firstborn by Maria, a daughter Alexandra, died aged seven from tuberculosis and Alexander kept her nightgown beneath his pillow for the rest of his life. Their eldest son and heir, Nicholas, also died from consumption in 1865. Both tragedies contributed to Maria’s frail health, something that had already taken a severe down-turn after the birth of her final child in 1860. Diagnosed with tuberculosis and instructed to spend more time in warmer climates, her husband built a sanctuary for her in the Crimea. Her absences paved the way for his infidelities.

Amongst his lovers was an eighteen year old, Marie Dolgorukaia. But it was her sister Catherine who was to steal the Tsar’s heart. After the death of their father, Alexander II had taken on their guardianship and enrolled the girls in the Smolny Institute, in St Petersburg. It was on a visit here that the sisters grabbed his attention. Firstly Marie was employed as a Maid-of-Honor to his wife whilst performing more personal functions; but after less than a year the Tsar turned his eyes to her younger sister Catherine, almost thirty years his junior. Following a brief platonic period, their relationship turned sexual and intensely passionate. Catherine too was appointed as a Maid-of-Honor and assigned her own suite of rooms in the Palace, directly above the personal rooms of the Tsarina.

One love too far?

It was the flaunting of the affair and the damaging effect it had on the Tsarina’s heath that angered many, especially the couple’s children. But Alexander’s first assignation with Catherine, in July 1866, came only a few months after the initial attempt on his life. The awareness that there would be other assassination attempts must have prevailed. He had survived a second by the time Catherine bore their first child together. At a time when life seemed precious and short Alexander turned away from his often morose and religiously maniacal wife towards the intensely sexual mistress. Proof of their passion can be read in the thousands of sexually explicit letters exchanged between them, with almost everyone referring to the act of love-making or ‘bingerle’ [their pet-name for it]. The regularity of his rigor even led to the Tsar’s physicians placing him with a six-week sex-ban. During this period Catherine wrote ‘I confess that I cannot be without your fountain, which I love so… After my six weeks are over I count on renewing my injections.’

It was the permanent presence of the mistress in rooms above the wife that attracted particular criticism. It is alleged that Maria was often disturbed by the noises of Catherine’s children and even as she lay dying was purported to have uttered: “Why is there no one to check those unruly bastards?” But perhaps the most controversial and biggest bone of contention was Alexander’s rush into a morganatic marriage with Catherine forty days after his wife’s death in the summer of 1880. Although tradition dictated a year of mourning, the attempts on Alexander’s life had intensified. He was only too aware of his mortality. He wrote to his sister, Olga, on his decision: ‘I would never have married [Katia Dolgorukova] before a year of mourning if not for the dangerous time we live in and for the hazardous attempts I expose myself to daily which can actually and suddenly end my life.’

History highlights the weaknesses of Russia’s leaders, especially its monarchs who were born, not elected, to rule. Alexander II, like Henry VIII, was blinded by lust. But here was a man who acknowledged he was to be assassinated; who was aware that eventually an attempt would succeed and his many cat-lives would run out. Peter Kropotkin wrote he was: ‘a man of strong passions and weak will.’

And so on closer examination of his flaws it could be argued that the creature most closely characteristic of Tsar Alexander was neither cat nor rat - but that of a typical human being.

Helen Saker-Parsons is the author of a book about an Allied soldier who is captured and held prisoner in Italy during World War II. The book, A Captive Life, is available here: Amazon US | Amazon UK

You can also read more on Russian history in this article on our blog about Grigori Rasputin here.

Selected References

• Pyotr Kropotkin, Mutual Aid

• Edvard Radzinsky, Alexander II: The last great Tsar

The Russian Peasant who attacked Napoleon’s War Machine – Image of the week

The tough Russian peasant who attacked Napoleon’s forces in 1812 is our image of the week.

We’ve had a number of articles related to Russia on the site this week, so thought we’d make the image of the week Russia-related too.

The 1812 Russian Campaign, or the French invasion of Russia, relates to Napoleon Bonaparte’s invasion of Russia during the Napoleonic Wars. The campaign was led by a huge French-led force of well over 500,000 troops. All did not go quite to Napoleon’s liking though, and the Russians were able to overcome the French to devastating effect. The defeat was a catastrophe for Napoleon and his dreams of control over Europe.

Our image is related to the Russian Campaign and says: “A Russian peasant loading a dung cart.” In the image, a hardy Russia peasant is about to attack a dainty French soldier with his pitchfork. The French soldier is terrified, even though he has a sword. In the background we can see why he is horrified – there is a dung cart full of the bodies of French troops among hay. A boy is also in the background, happily looking at the man’s attack on the French soldier.

This print is from March 1813.

What else Russia-related have you missed this week? Our article on famed Russian Grigori Rasputin is here and a podcast about Gulags is here.

George Levrier-Jones

Hypnotic Animals - or maybe not? How Animal Mesmerism grew across Britain and Europe

Here Kate Tyte gives us a fascinating overview of Mesmerism, a popular hypnotic process that united all classes and many people believed in through the 18th and 19th centuries.

“There is only one illness,” pronounced Franz Anton Mesmer, “and only one cure.” This cure was animal magnetism, a practice that united eighteenth century society in debate. From royalty to peasants, politicians to revolutionaries, scientists to Freemasons: everyone had an opinion on magnetism. 

Franz Anton Mesmer was born in Germany in 1734. He studied medicine in Vienna, married a wealthy widow and became a fashionable doctor. Not bad for the son of a game keeper. 

In 1774, Mesmer was introduced to patient Francisca Oesterlin. She suffered from ‘constant vomiting, inflammation of the bowels, stoppage of urine, excruciating toothache, earache, melancholy, depression, delirium, fits of frenzy, catalepsy, fainting fits, blindness, breathlessness, and lameness.’ Mesmer tried a novel cure. He gave her a medicine containing iron and applied magnets over her body to create an ‘artificial tide.’ Oesterlin was cured. In fact, she was so well she soon married Mesmer’s step-son. Mesmer now theorized that the whole universe was held together by magnetic fluid, and that disease was caused by blockages in free-flow of this fluid through the body. Animal magnetism was born.

Mesmer developed his cure. He would stare into his patient’s eyes and massage their body, wave a wand at them, or have them put their feet in magnetic water, until they had a ‘crisis’ or a fit and were cured. He was soon hounded out of Vienna as a charlatan and moved to Paris. Once again the medical and scientific authorities were skeptical, but the public loved magnetism so much he had to introduce group cures. His patients would hold onto a tub of magnetized water, a magnetized tree, or simply hold hands.

The authorities felt threatened by Mesmer’s miracle cures and were determined to stamp out animal magnetism. In 1784 the King appointed a Royal Commission of eminent scientists, led by Benjamin Franklin, to investigate. It was rather awkward as they were all members of a masonic lodge that was very keen on magnetism. But their scientific self-interest won the day. They reported that ‘magnetic fluid’ was humbug and that Mesmer’s cures were either fake or a product of the imagination. Mesmer was a staunch materialist and strongly denied that his cures were produced by the mind.

The commission finished Mesmer’s career. He left Paris and drifted around Europe. He was later imprisoned in Vienna as a suspected revolutionary, and died in Germany in 1815.

Magnetism lives on!

Meanwhile, animal magnetism continued to march through Europe and remained as popular as ever. This was hardly surprising. In the late eighteenth century all the medical establishment could offer was blood-letting, vomits and purges. Given the choice between a cure that was painful, dangerous and useless, or one that was pleasant, safe and useless, I would pick the latter option every time.

In 1784, the same year as the Royal Commission, Armand Marie Jacques Chastenet, Marquis of Puysegur, took magnetism in a new direction. He discovered he could induce a new state of consciousness, called ‘artificial somnambulism’ or ‘magnetic sleep.’ This sometimes gave patients occult powers such as clairvoyance and extra-sensory perception. Puysegur’s ‘spiritual’ or psychological version of animal magnetism, became known as ‘mesmerism’, and ensured the continued popularity of the practice.

The British

Mesmerism spread to Britain in the 1780s. The establishment was skeptical. They saw mesmerism as unscientific, and worse, un-English. The Frogs and the Krauts might go in for such effeminate mumbo-jumbo, but John Bull was not going to fall for such nonsense. Despite this, the political classes got quite hysterical about it during the revolutionary wars. They worried that the French were using ‘magnetic spies’ to pry into the minds of the British.

Mesmerism was re-born in Britain during the 1830s and 1840s when several popular books on the subject started a craze dubbed ‘mesmeric mania’. The salons of high society delighted in mesmerism and even Charles Dickens had a dabble. Many people think of mesmerism as an eccentric pursuit by the fringes of Victorian society, but for about 20 years it was all-pervasive and inescapable in every aspect of British life.

The working classes were just as fascinated by mesmerism as the wealthy. Mesmeric showmen toured the country giving demonstrations. Mesmerism’s appeal was obvious. It was exciting, mysterious and wonderfully meritocratic. Anyone could mesmerize. There was no need for expensive training or membership of exclusive professional bodies. Mesmerism was used as a cheap form of medicine for the poor and also a way to explore paranormal phenomena, such as clairvoyance. It could also be deliciously subversive. Men who dropped their aitches could mesmerize duchesses, throwing the whole social order into glorious disarray. And some Socialist groups actually promoted mesmerism as part of a radical political agenda.

The medical profession, though, remained vehemently opposed to mesmerism. John Ellitson, senior physician at University College Hospital and respected medical author, was eager to experiment. He found mesmerism helped many of his patients so he began lecturing on it. This caused a mighty row with the hospital authorities and ended his career. The hospital didn’t care whether mesmerism worked or not. They simply felt that it was disreputable and a threat to their status. Thomas Wakley, editor of The Lancet, said that mesmerists ought to be shunned “more than lepers, or the uncleanest of the unclean.” Wakley had no such qualms about the ludicrous pseudo-science of phrenology.

The medical profession even dismissed mesmerism’s use for surgical anesthesia. Hundreds of operations were carried out using mesmeric pain relief in the 1830s and 40s. At one colonial hospital in India, mesmeric anesthesia caused the death-rate to plummet by 50%. The medical establishment simply ignored this evidence and claimed that all the patients had been faking it! Ellitson asked in despair, “How long will you refuse to spare a single wretched patient the pain of your instruments?”

As it turned out, not long. Mesmerism made the infliction of pain surgery seem like an avoidable trauma, rather than a simple fact of life. Mesmerism inspired surgeons to experiment and by the 1850s ether and chloroform were being used widely. 

The mesmeric craze died out in the 1850s. Chemical anesthesia rendered it redundant in operations and the public had moved on to a new craze for séances, ouija boards and spiritualism. It took many years for mesmerism, or hypnosis as it was later called, to be taken seriously and recognized as tool with great potential for psychological healing. In the meantime the mesmerism craze was practically written out of history as a silly and embarrassing episode. This was unfair, as mesmerism had in fact spared many patients from pain and suffering.

By Kate Tyte. Kate is an archivist, history writer and blogger.  You can follow her on twitter at @KateTyte and find her blog at katetyte.com.

You can also find out more about Mesmerism in Robin Waterfield’s Hidden Depths – The Story of Hypnosis. Available here: Amazon US | Amazon UK

Out from Slavery: Heroes for all Americans and the Lessons from Slavery

Following the release of the film 12 Years a Slave, Jason McKenney reflects on the lessons that the whole of America can learn from slavery. He also argues that from the time of American independence, slavery was in demise in the USA and considers the importance of slavery in US history.

This article is provided by Jason McKenney from http://time-trip.blogspot.com

Simply a Shame?

With the recent release of the film 12 Years a Slave, there has been a gale of new commentary on slavery in the United States. The film is based on the autobiographical account of Solomon Northrup, a black man born free in New York State before being kidnapped and sold down the river where he was to live the life of enforced bondage in Louisiana until his escape.

Most of the reviews of the film are as much about slavery as they are about the movie itself. Based on several reviews posted at RottenTomatoes.com, slavery was a “tragedy of countless thousands of souls beaten down,” an “unrelenting horror” and “our national shame.” Thoughts like this aren’t a surprise when dealing with such an emotional and gut-wrenching subject. No sane person would disagree with these statements, but it almost feels like we’re tilling the same ground over and over here without planting any new seeds. Could there be a more positive lesson to pull out of the awe-inspiring struggle so many black slaves endured to make progress towards freedom? Is there a lesson that keeps the evil aspects of slavery in perspective while also giving us a better understanding why it was so important that black liberation succeeded?

A Ride for Liberty - The Fugitive Slaves. Eastman Johnson, 1862.

Slavery and its relation to the black experience in the United States are frequently thought of in just those terms: the black experience. There are not many lessons that the white population currently take from the long struggle for emancipation beyond the fact that slavery was America’s so-called “national shame” and that whites should treat blacks as equals. Other groups such as Latinos and Asians may feel even further removed from this chapter in US national history. However, there is much more for all Americans to learn from the liberation of black slaves than it simply being the right thing to do.

Fueling the Fire of Liberation

The demise of slavery in the United States began almost the moment the nation declared its independence from Britain.

“But how can that be?” you ask. “Slavery still had decades of massive growth ahead of it after 1776.”

I will concede that point if you also concede that the broader principles, arguments and justifications for ending slavery were making unprecedented leaps and bounds in the 18th century. The philosophical movement known as “The Enlightenment” produced writers and thinkers who argued against slavery on humanitarian grounds because the treatment of slaves was growing more brutal by the moment. While valid in tone, the weakness to this argument is that it makes slavery more acceptable as long as the slave isn’t treated poorly. More complete arguments against human slavery claimed that it violated basic natural rights, including the right to liberty of person. These were ideas that had been virtually unheard of prior to The Enlightenment, and with the US Declaration of Independence, the birth of the first nation founded principally on Enlightenment Ideals was underway.

“But the Constitution made indirect allowances for slavery when it was first ratified!” you say.

“And many of the Founding Fathers owned slaves!” you say.

As the 18th century English writer Samuel Johnson put it, “How is it that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty among the drivers of Negroes?” True and true, but as most writers will also say, perfection rarely arrives in the first couple of drafts. It can take years of delicate crafting to go from a small kernel of truth and stretch it out to a full-fledged cultural paradigm. In other words, who cares if Thomas Jefferson owned slaves? The principles of individual rights, human liberty and religious freedom which the agrarian redhead supported helped fertilize the soil out of which the fight for abolition grew.  This was because, at their heart, many of the Founding Fathers knew their ideal of personal freedom from tyranny was incompatible with chattel slavery. They believed it would only be a matter of time before the peculiar institution either phased itself out or resulted in a climactic and violent civil war.

During the eighty-nine years between the Declaration of Independence and the Surrender at Appomattox, many African-Americans, both free and slave, fought with as much heart, courage and fearlessness to free their people as any lieutenant in General Washington’s army. The fight took many forms. Frederick Douglass and William Still gave us words, stories and history. Nat Turner and Denmark Vesey gave us conspiracy and execution of violent slave revolts in the antebellum countryside. Harriet Tubman and Sojourner Truth showed us that even caught in the brambles of soul-crushing bondage, a woman’s spirit could rise above the situation and show others that a better life was possible.

Each of these people and thousands of others just like them, whether they knew it or not, were acting out natural human impulses codified in America’s Founding Documents. America was built on liberty and independence because the Founding Fathers believed that was the natural state of humankind; to be free and self-governing and not tied down to another power whether it be an English despot or some Southern plantation owner.

An Inspiration for Others

I think that too often, the black struggle for liberation is viewed as an ancillary offshoot of American history and not part of the main course. Most Americans think of US history between the 1770s and the 1860s as basically the Revolution, maybe the War of 1812, the growth of slavery, westward expansion, and then the Civil War where the slaves were freed (with a Second Great Awakening mixed in for good measure). When attention is paid to events like the Underground Railroad, Douglass’ North Star and the early 19th century slave rebellions, they are sometimes viewed as isolated or even minor events that played third fiddle to the larger strains of the American narrative. They will also tend to be viewed as sources of pride exclusively for the African-American population and less so for other ethnicities who claim this nation as home. Instead, these events should be viewed as a vindication of the ideals of the Enlightenment, justification in the founding of the United States and proof that the struggle for the abolishment of black slavery was a more tangible representation of the abstract models fought for by the Founding Fathers.

The examples given by people like Tubman, Still and Northrup to modern Americans of every stripe and color are just as powerful and just as meaningful to the blended DNA of freedom that underlies the United States as any treatise by Jefferson, maneuvers led by Washington or speeches given by Lincoln. These men and women of color fighting for their independence and inspired by the spirit of our Constitution serve as great examples of what it means to be American. Their actions will naturally carry deeper meaning for other African-Americans, but Americans of every ethnic background should take pride in living in a country that has produced such amazing leaders as these.

Jason McKenney was born and raised in Lexington, Kentucky, and now lives in the suburbs of Los Angeles. His education background is in technology and business, but he has a passion for history. His adventure series Time Trip is his attempt to introduce young adult readers to famous historical events in a new and exciting way.

• Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/timetrip101
• Twitter: @jason_mckenney
• Site: http://time-trip.blogspot.com

Want to find out more about slavery in America? Download issue 2 of our digital magazine History is Now. Click here!

The amazing historical town of Ilha de Mocambique – Image of the week

An image from the fascinating former Portuguese colonial capital in Mozambique is this week’s image of the week.

As you approach Ilha de Mocambique (Island of Mozambique) across a causeway, you are struck by the difference between this small former capital city and the surrounding towns. The town was the capital of Portuguese East Africa for many years, but the capital’s location then changed and the town slowly fell into some sort of decay.

In the image we can see the Misericordia Church bathed in sunlight, a girl walking by the steps of the church, and some ladies washing in the shade. A beautiful scene.

The image comes from Stig Nygaard in 2007 and is available here.

Want to find out about what’s happening with us this year? Click here to join us and find out more!

George Levrier-Jones

Happy New Year! Our image of the week is from 19th century Australia

In order to celebrate the New Year, our image of the week is from a very old party.

Happy New Year!

We thought it only fitting that this week’s image comes from a New Year’s celebration. In fact we’re going all the way back to 19th century Australia.

Our image shows a big party with ladies in beautiful Victorian clothing, horses at work, and children at play – all amid the crowds. It is a scene from George Street, Sydney, near the markets, on New Year’s eve. And the year? All the way from December 31, 1878.

It comes from the Australian Town and Country Journal, 4 January 1879, page 24.

Happy New Year!

Want to find out about what’s happening with us in the New Year? Click here to join us and then find out more!

George Levrier-Jones

Merry Old Santa Claus from the 19th century. Our image of the week

With Christmas only hours away, today’s image of the week is a classic 19th century image of Santa.

The origins of Christmas go very far back. Santa Claus, or Saint Nicholas, first dates to over 1500 years ago. Indeed, Saint Nicholas is a Greek saint from the fourth-century. Later in this Christmas tradition came Sinterklaas in Holland and Father Christmas in the UK.

But various factors caused Santa to become more well-known and more popular. Many people believe that it was Coca-Cola who invented Santa (in fact, a colleague of mine who used to work at Coca-Cola also claimed that), but that is not quite true. There are various images and references to Santa in both the 19th and early 20th centuries.

Our image of the week shows a drawing of Santa from Harper’s Weekly in 1881 entitled ‘Merry Old Santa Claus.’ It was drawn by Thomas Nast and went a long way to showing the Santa we know and love today. Santa is smoking his pipe, has what appears to be mistletoe in his hair, and has hands overflowing with toys and other gifts.

Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays!

Did you miss last week’s Christmas image on the World War I miracle? Click here to find out more!

George Levrier-Jones

Of Sailors and Kings - 19th century tattoos

The Victorian era was a time of great conservatism and when tattoos were more than taboo for most of society; however that didn’t stop some of the most important members of the British Royal Family obtaining tattoos – including future Kings!

A young Prince of Wales - the future King Edward VII. Some years after this portrait, he was to receive a tattoo! Alas pictures of the tattoo are difficult to come by,

You might think tattoos only became popular in the 20th century in the West. Well, that is far from being true. In fact, Tattoos were popular amongst various military personnel as well as the highest of the high…

In 1862 no lesser person than the Prince of Wales received his first tattoo. The Prince was the son of Queen Victoria and the future King Edward VII. His tattoo was a Jerusalem cross by Francois Souwan, obtained while he visited Jerusalem. He was then around 20 years old, and sent to the East by Victoria who seemed to have not been particularly fond of her dandy son.

While most British ports had had professional tattoo artists in residence since the 18th century, Edward’s tattoo started a fad among the aristocracy. In 1882, Edward’s sons, the Duke of Clarence and the Duke of York (the later George V), were tattooed by the Japanese tattooist Hoti Chiyo. The Duke of York received a tattoo of a dragon on his arm. Later, the prince received more tattoos from Tom Riley and Sutherland Macdonald.

He wrote in a letter, “we have been tattooed by the same old man who tattooed papa, and the same thing too, five crosses. You ask Papa to show you his arm,” although that sentence has been the subject of debate.

All the 19th century dictionaries and encyclopedias suggest that among Europeans, tattooing was confined to seamen, and sometimes soldiers. The first permanent tattoo shop in New York City was set up in 1846 and later began a tradition by tattooing military servicemen from both sides of the civil war. Samuel O’Reilly invented the electric tattooing machine in 1891.

However, in 1861 the French naval surgeon Maurice Berchon published a study on the medical complications of tattooing, and after this, the navy and army made efforts to ban tattooing within their services.

Another aspect of 19th century tattooing was people who claimed to have been unwillingly tattooed. For example, John Rutherford arrived on the exhibition scene in 1827 with a full Maori Moko tattoo on his face. He made quite a profit from telling how he was captured and tattooed by force.

Sadly, none of the British princes seems to have been keen on showing off their royal tattoos in public and to this day photos are rather difficult to come by.

Do let us know if you come across any!

This article is provided by Geerte de Jong from http://19thcentury.wordpress.com.

Enjoy the article? Well, why not read about the British royal family’s civil war in a very different age? Click here.

The United States and King Leopold II's bloody acquisition of the Congo

The Belgian colonization of the Congo was one of the worst examples of exploitative behavior from a European colonial power. Here we look at Belgian King Leopold II and the USA’s role in his acquisition of the West-Central African territory of the Congo.

The story of King Leopold II of Belgium and his obsessive quest for an African colony is a tale of greed, devastation, and woe. It is a journey into the darkness of humankind, with brutality and hypocrisy the sole victors. King Leopold’s Congolese experiment took several decades to develop and implement as this clever but devious King slowly and carefully maneuvered himself to manipulate many, including the people of the Congo, the international community, and even his own subjects. Motivated by desire, greed, envy, his own ego, and several other interested parties, a colony was established which would have tragic and lasting consequences for the native population. 

A young Leopold in 1853. He would later become an ambitious, greedy King.

Leopold was born in Brussels, Belgium in 1835, and he came to power when he became King in 1865. By the time he became King, two things interested him greatly: territory and money - by which I mean financial gain. The combination of these would prove to be of great significance in his later life, along with that of millions of others. He became very jealous of the Great European Powers around him; of their riches, their power, and most importantly, of their colonies. He was very ambitious but equally frustrated. Belgium was too weak for him and his ambitions. Petit pays, petit gens (small country, small people) goes the phrase; however, the country that Belgium had gained independence from in the 1830s, the Netherlands, had a sizeable empire. He wanted such an empire for himself too. The Congo was one of the areas in Africa that was not recognized by all major powers as belonging to a European Power in the 1870s, and it promised many treasures, such as ivory and rubber, ready to be harvested at the cost of the native people there. Nonetheless, before Leopold could stake his claim on the land, he would have to manipulate several European nations to recognize his claim over it. But he also wanted the support of the United States.

And why the USA? After all, in the 1870s the USA was still quite inward-looking and trying to grow internally. The answer is that even at this time, the United States was fast becoming the most powerful and richest nation on earth, and to have its recognition of Leopold’s claim to the Congo would go a long way to convincing his European rivals. It was in that light that Leopold began his great quest.

One of Leopold’s early moves was to contact the United States’ ambassador to Belgium, one General Henry Shelton Sanford. He commissioned Sanford to acquire the services of the famous British-American explorer Henry Morton Stanley. Stanley, like Leopold, was extremely ambitious, and also had an egotistical and ambitious streak about him. By the time Leopold had secured his service, Stanley had already crossed the Congo, and had famously found the British missionary David Livingstone in 1871. In addition, Stanley had written about his escapades in Africa, presenting himself as something of a 19th century hero and celebrity. Acquiring the services of possibly the best explorer in the world was something of a coup for Leopold.

Ambassador Sanford’s involvement would go much further. It now became his responsibility to convince the President of the United States of Leopold’s claim and plans for the Congo. If the US could recognize this claim, Leopold would be in a very powerful position. But what would the US get in return for this recognition? Leopold promised the US that its citizens would be able to buy land in the Congo, and that US goods there would be free of all customs duties. Furthermore, Stanley had been touting himself as ‘born and bred’ in the United States, meaning that an American had not only played a role in discovering the Congo, but that one would continue to play a role in the territory. This was important to the United States as it was growing in stature and being recognized as a significant power in the international community.

Sanford’s own personal motivation was purely financial as he would stand to gain a great deal from this trade. As such, he lobbied the executive branch for recognition, despite Leopold omitting the fact that he had a monopoly on all trade there – and had no intention of giving it up. Although Sanford’s business affairs in the past bordered on poor to sketchy, and he owed his prominence in large part due to his inheritance, he saw this as too good an opportunity to pass away. He reasoned that any failure as a businessperson would be countered by his success as an accomplice of Leopold’s. He had already succeeded in acquiring Stanley’s services, and his involvement led to the United States recognizing the Congo as a colony of Belgium. Sanford even received royal praise from Leopold for his work, something that he actually valued more than the money itself.

Another key person in lobbying the President in favor of Belgium’s claim was Senator John Tyler Morgan. His wish was for the African-American population to return to Africa after the abolition of slavery in the USA. Morgan was very fearful of an African-American uprising, following demands for equality and liberty. He had also quickly seen an opportunity to send the black population back to Africa to work with the Congolese in enhancing trade, and as a place to sell any surplus cotton.

After the President of the United States agreed to recognize the Congo as being under King Leopold’s rule, it helped Leopold in petitioning European Powers to do the same. 

Leopold offered the French droit de preference, first right of refusal, should Leopold go bankrupt in his efforts to colonize the Congo. The French were extremely concerned about Leopold going bankrupt as they felt the colony would then fall into the hands of the British, their closest rivals, in part due to explorer Stanley’s Welsh origins. Because of this, the French were relatively easy to convince. Leopold also promised them the same trade agreement as the USA, but omitted to tell them of the one he had already agreed with the US. The French then recognized Leopold’s claim.

Leopold’s claim to the Congo was more formally agreed in the 1884 Berlin Conference, and the Congo Free State was declared the following year. Leopold and Belgium now had their part of the wider European Scramble for Africa.

The way for Leopold to go forward and colonize the Congo was clear. With recognition from important international powers, King Leopold II of Belgium had successfully manipulated the international community in to giving him permission to acquire the Congo - and fulfil his greedy ambitions. The effects of this recognition were to prove devastating…

By J Parker

Do you agree that the USA had a key role in allowing King Leopold II to capture the Congo? Thoughts below…

You can read about another European attempt at colonizing Africa in our article on the Italian colonization of Libya in issue 1 of our magazine History is Now. Click here to download the app and to subscribe for free for 2 months to the magazine.

The Duke of Wellington’s victory over Napoleon - funny? Our image of the week

This week’s image of the week features one of the greatest British heroes of them all, Prussian von Bluche, and Napoleon Bonaparte.

The cartoon has leaders of two European armies literally putting the lid on another failed European attempt to dominate that continent. After controlling much of Europe just a few short years before, by 1815 Napoleon’s France had been defeated. This cartoon goes some way to commemorating that.

We see Field Marshal Gebhard Leberecht von Blucher, who led Prussian forces at the 1815 Battle of Waterloo, alongside his British counter-part, Arthur Wellesley, the Duke of Wellington. In the center we see them putting the lid on top of France’s Napoleon Bonaparte. Napoleon is trying to escape but can’t. His face looks distressed in a comical way. Indeed, Napoleon was exiled to the remote Atlantic island of Saint Helena by the British after the Battle of Waterloo.

There is an article about a very significant battle involving the Duke of Wellington and Napoleon’s France in the new issue of History is Now Magazine. Click here to find out more!

George Levrier-Jones