VII. On Some Later Funeral Effigies in Westminster Abbey

L. E. Tanner; J. L. Nevinson

doi:10.1017/S0261340900015204

VII. On Some Later Funeral Effigies in Westminster Abbey

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 19 July 2011

L. E. Tanner and

J. L. Nevinson

Article contents

Extract
References

Get access

Extract

On the 31st January 1907 the late Sir William St. John Hope read a paper before the Society ‘On the Funeral Effigies of the Kings and Queens ofEngland,with special reference to those in the Abbey Church of Westminster’, and to this paper our Fellow the late Dr. Armitage Robinson, then dean of Westminster, appended ‘A Note on the Westminster Tradition of Identification’. In this paper the origin and history of the earlier effigies—‘the Ragged Regiment’— were dealt with in detail, but the later effigies, familiarly known as the ‘Waxworks’, were outside its scope, and their history was only lightly sketched in a few sentences by the dean of Westminster.

Type: Research Article
Information: Archaeologia , Volume 85 , 1936 , pp. 169 - 202

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261340900015204 [Opens in a new window]
Copyright: Copyright © The Society of Antiquaries of London 1936

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

^{page 169 note 1} Archaeologia, LX (1907), 517–70.Google Scholar

^{page 170 note 1} Archaeologia, LX (1907), 517.Google Scholar

^{page 170 note 2} Art Journal, 1866, article by Fairholt, F. W., ‘The Westminster Abbey Wax Works’.Google Scholar

^{page 170 note 3} See a letter from the Rev. J. M. Wilmot Brooke in The Times (4th July 1933) where the original letter is quoted.

^{page 170 note 4} Articles by one of the present writers on the effigies as each was cleaned and returned appeared in The Times for 7th April, 29th June, 20th November 1933; 26th March, 9th October 1934; 21st January, 4th June, 30th September 1935; and 14th January 1936. Further illustrations of the effigies can be found in the Illustrated London News for 22nd April, 1st July, 25th November 1933; 31st March, 13th October 1934; 26th January, 15th June, 5th October, 1935; and 18th January 1936.

^{page 171 note 1} e.g. B.M. Add. MSS. 38141, H 62, 64.

^{page 171 note 2} Cal. Treas. Books, 1685–9, p. 769 (Disposition Book IV, pp. 194–5).

^{page 172 note 1} Cal. of State Papers (Dom.), 1651, p. 476.

^{page 172 note 2} Ashmole, vii, 202 et seq.

^{page 172 note 3} I am indebted to Miss Joan Evans, D.Litt., F.S.A., for calling my attention to this mantle.

^{page 172 note 4} Precentor's Book (1729) which has a note that it was supplied at this date at a cost of, £3 3s.

^{page 172 note 5} This and subsequent entries refer to the numbers of the photographic negatives at the Victoria and Albert Museum.

^{page 173 note 1} See Zeitschrift für hist. Waffenkunde, III, 2, p. 39 (1929).Google Scholar

^{page 173 note 2} An exactly similar sword-belt appears in the picture of Charles II by John Michael Wright in the National Portrait Gallery.

^{page 174 note 1} Compare a portrait of Charles II in the possession of the earl of Mar.

^{page 174 note 2} Cf. Guillim, Display of Heraldry, 4th ed. (1660), p. 271: ‘When a Knight of the Garter is booted for to ride, it sufficeth to wear upon the left leg under his boot, a Blew Riband of silk in signification of the Garter’.

^{page 176 note 1} See Complete Peerage, G. E. C. vii, pp. 612–13; D.N.B.; and La Belle Stuart, by Hartmann, C. H. (1924).Google Scholar

^{page 176 note 2} P.C.C. Hern f. 166.

^{page 176 note 3} ‘On Wednesday last Mrs. Goldsmith, the Famous Woman for Waxwork, brought to Westminster Abbey the Effigies of that celebrated Beauty the late Dutchess of Richmond, which is said to be the richest Figure that ever was set up in King Henry's Chappel,’ Daily Courant, Friday, 6th August 1703. For Mrs. Goldsmith see Social Life in the reign of Queen Anne, by J. Ashton, pp. 213–14.Google Scholar

^{page 176 note 4} 13th July 1663.

^{page 177 note 1} Cf. G. D. Rowley, Ornithological Miscellany, 1876, pp. 164,172.

^{page 180 note 1} He was created ‘Duke of the County of Buckingham’ and is therefore sometimes called duke of Buckinghamshire.

^{page 180 note 2} Quoted in G. E. C. Complete Peerage, ii, 400 n.

^{page 180 note 3} Letters (ed. Toynbee), i, 331 and note.

^{page 180 note 1} Ibid.

^{page 181 note 1} Vol. xiii (1743), 191.

^{page 181 note 2} Reproduced on p. 15 of Smith, H. Clifford's Buckingham Palace (1931).Google Scholar

^{page 181 note 3} These have been removed and have been framed and placed in the case.

^{page 184 note 1} Cf. a similar robe, Bulletin de la Société de l'histoire du Costume, p. 175, ill. (1907).Google Scholar

^{page 184 note 2} See below William III, No. 3.

^{page 185 note 1} See Libron, F., Le Corset …, 1933, p. 40, ill.Google Scholar

^{page 185 note 2} Encyclopaedia Britannica and O.E. Dictionary, under Chrysanthemum.

^{page 185 note 3} Collections, xi, 235.

^{page 185 note 4} G. E. C. Complete Peerage; cf. The Orrery Papers, ii, 314.

^{page 186 note 1} Walpole, Reminiscences of the Courts of George I and II, p. cxli.

^{page 186 note 2} B.M. Add. MS. 33379, and Malcolm, , Londinium Redivivum (1803), p. 99.Google Scholar

^{page 186 note 3} A mantle and surcoat dated 1715 are preserved at Welbeck Abbey.

^{page 186 note 4} ‘On Monday night last some villains concealed themselves in Westminster Abbey and having broken the glass case which was over the Effigie of the late Duke of Buckingham found means to carry off the Flap of his gold Waistcoat; some of the Blood of their Fingers was perceived on his Ruffles’ (Daily Gazetteer, 15th June 1737).Google Scholar

^{page 189 note 1} Chapter Book, 3rd June 1760: ‘The Gentlemen of the Choir having requested leave that they may set up a waxen Effigy of Q. Elizabeth within the Tombs at their own expense, the said request was agreed to, and it was ordered that the College Carpenter do make a wainscot case for the same at the College expense, as hath formerly been done on the like occasions.’ Cf. W. A. M., 33791, 47867 A. The effigy cost £56 2s. 3d.

^{page 189 note 2} See a full account in Archaeologia, lx, 553–4. The effigy is clearly shown in the pictorial record of the funeral procession in B.M. Add. MS. 35324, where there is also a representation of the original hearse.

^{page 189 note 3} B.M. Add. MS. 23069.

^{page 189 note 4} Cf. Connoisseur, XCI (1933), p. 361, where the drawing at Windsor Castle, by I. Oliver, of the queen in this dress is reproduced.Google Scholar

^{page 190 note 1} The money for the effigies seems to have been advanced by ‘the society’ and repaid to the members from the money derived from showing the tombs.

^{page 191 note 1} Cf. W.A.M., 46287 B, 46395.

^{page 191 note 2} The device under the crown may be a W. monogram. If so the stockings may have actually been made for William III.

^{page 194 note 1} One hand is in fact larger than the other.

^{page 195 note 1} Stanley, Memorials of Westminster Abbey (5th ed.), pp. 324–5.

^{page 195 note 2} For the full story see article in The Times, 20th August 1931.Google Scholar

^{page 195 note 3} Walpole's Letters (ed. Toynbee), viii, 237.

^{page 195 note 4} Cf. Wesley, 's Journal, 24th January 1774:Google Scholar ‘I am desired by Mrs. Wright of New York to let her take my effigy in Waxworks.’

^{page 195 note 5} For Mrs. Wright see D.N.B.; London Magazine, 1775, pp. 555–6Google Scholar (with portrait); article by Bolton, E. S., in Antiques, October 1931, p. 207; Franklin's Correspondence, i, 34.Google Scholar

^{page 196 note 1} London Magazine, 1775, p. 555.Google Scholar

^{page 196 note 2} Cf. Malcolm, Londinium Redivivum, i, 122.

^{page 196 note 3} Through the kindness of the present owner of the death-mask of Chatham, we were able to place it side by side with the head of the effigy. The resemblance was most striking and convincing.

^{page 196 note 4} Nineteenth-century robes were trimmed with ermine and had black ribbon ties.

^{page 197 note 1} This has been preserved separately.

^{page 197 note 2} Stanley, p. 325.

^{page 198 note 1} Neale and Brayley, Westminster Abbey, ii, 200; W. A.M. 57571, is the bill (dated March 1806) for making the case for the effigy. The words ‘Victory or Westminster Abbey’ were formerly inscribed upon the glass front of the case in gold letters.Google Scholar

^{page 198 note 2} W. T. Whitley, Art in England, 1800–1820; A. Earland, John Opie and his Circle, pp. 69–70; cf. letter from Charlotte B. Wolstencroft in The Times (10th June 1935), quoting MS. family reminiscences of Robert Bowyer and Miss Andras which state, ‘On the death of Lord Nelson, who had previously sat to her for his model (at the same time when Mr. Bowyer was painting his miniature), she was requested to furnish a full-length figure for Westminster Abbey, for the robing of which his family furnished a suit of his own clothes, including the shoe buckles he wore when he fell’ The reference to the shoe buckles would appear to be a mistake. There is a small wax profile of Nelson by Miss Andras at Greenwich and there are others in private hands.

^{page 198 note 3} We are indebted to our Fellow Professor Geoffrey Callender, Director of the National Maritime Museum, Greenwich, for pointing this out to us and also for much valuable assistance with regard to this effigy.

^{page 198 note 4} Private information; cf. a letter, dated 1806, of Elizabeth Foster (afterwards duchess of Devonshire) which says ‘there is a wax figure of Lord Nelson put up in Westminster Abbey which is as if he was standing there’, Vere Foster, The Two Duchesses, p. 263.

^{page 198 note 5} Hill, Benson E., Recollections of an Artillery Officer (1836), pp. 12–14, where he relates how he escorted Lady Hamilton round the Abbey on this occasion.Google Scholar

^{page 199 note 1} e.g. ‘10th September 1805, Cocked Hat, Green Shade, £2 6s. od.’. A similar hat, with the shade in position, appears in the portrait painted by Devis just before the Victory sailed for Trafalgar.

^{page 199 note 2} p. 325.

^{page 199 note 3} Professor Callender kindly allows us to quote from an unpublished letter from Sarah, 1st countess Nelson, dated 13th February 1806 and now at the National Maritime Museum, which also suggests that the coat was Nelson's. Writing to Lady Hamilton about the coat which Nelson was wearing at Trafalgar, she adds ‘’tis thought a glass case hermetically sealed (the same as Miss Andras will do hers in Westminster Abbey) will be the best mode of preserving it from the injuries of the external air’.

^{page 200 note 1} Added in 1822 (Precentor's Book).

^{page 201 note 1} Nelson himself, though he lived in an age of wigs, did not wear one himself.

^{page 202 note 1} An example of this would have been difficult to obtain for the effigy in 1806.

^{page 202 note 2} ‘Next Thursday we are to be entertained with a pompous parade for the burial of old Princess Buckingham. They have invited ten peeresses to walk; all somehow or other dashed with bloodroyal, and rather than not have King James's daughter attended by princesses, they have fished out two or three countesses descended from his competitor Montnouth.’ Walpole's Letters (ed. Toynbee), i, 336. Cf. the account of the funeral in the Gentleman's Magazine, 1743, p. 191.Google Scholar

^{page 202 note 3} Archaeologia, LX (1907), 527.Google Scholar

Article contents

VII. On Some Later Funeral Effigies in Westminster Abbey

Extract

Access options

References

Save article to Kindle

Save article to Dropbox

Save article to Google Drive

Reply to: Submit a response

Your details

You have entered the maximum number of contributors

Conflicting interests