7/30/2019 c.white.the wife tale:francrs lady nelson and the break-up of her marriage
1/23
This article was downloaded by: [176.241.225.15]On: 30 December 2012, At: 02:23Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: MortimerHouse, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Journal for Marit ime ResearchPublicat ion detai l s, incl uding inst ruct ions for aut hors and subscript ion inform ation:h t t p : / / www. t an df o nl i ne . co m/ l o i/ rma r20
The Wife's Tale: Frances, Lady Nelson and the
breakup of her marr iageColin Whit e
a
aDirector, Trafalgar 200
Version of record first published: 08 Feb 2011.
To cite this article: Coli n Whit e (2003): The Wif e's Tale: Frances, Lady Nelson and the b reakup of her m arriage, Journal
for Marit im e Research, 5:1, 121-142
To link t o this art icle: ht t p : / / dx.do i .o rg / 10.1080/ 21533369.2003.9668331
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to
anyone is expressly forbidden.The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug dosesshould be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions,claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditionshttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/21533369.2003.9668331http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rmar207/30/2019 c.white.the wife tale:francrs lady nelson and the break-up of her marriage
2/23
The Wife's Tale: Frances, Lady Nelson
and the break-up of her marriageISSN: 1469-1957
Journal Issue: October 2003
Colin White
Director, Trafalgar 200
I was truly Sensible of my good fortune in having such a Husband
An important new archive
Frances, Lady Nelson; miniature by Daniel Orme (watercolour on paper). Neg. No.
A0094; NMM.
In late June 1801 Frances, Lady Nelson learned that her husband, Vice Admiral Lord
Nelson, had been released from his post as Commander-in-Chief in the Baltic and was
daily expected home in Britain. She had not seen him for six months, during whichtime he had made it clear on a number of occasions that he considered their marriage
effectively at an end. So the news of his impending arrival both excited and upset her.
On 26 June she wrote to Alexander Davison, Nelson's prize agent and close friend,
'When I heard on Sunday that My Dear Lord was expected My heart was all
thankfulness and pleasure, but a moments unwelcome and intruding reflection made
me truly a miserable and pitiable being.' She then went on,
I love him I would do anything in the world to convince him of My affection I was
truly Sensible of my good fortune in having such a Husband Surely I have angered
him it was done unconsciously and without the least intension1 I can truly say,
My wish, My desire was to please him.2
121
7/30/2019 c.white.the wife tale:francrs lady nelson and the break-up of her marriage
3/23
This warmly loving and expressive passage challenges the traditional view of Frances
presented in most Nelson biographies. Even those most sympathetic to her have
tended to regret what A.T. Mahan described as 'a somewhat colourless womanly
affection'3 that made her unable to match her husbands energy and passion. Others
have gone further and sought to blame the breakdown of the marriage on her
emotional and sexual inadequacy. As recently as 1972, Geoffrey Bennett wrote, 'Amarriage between a man so warm-blooded and high-spirited and a woman so frigid
and neurotic was ill-starred from the beginning.'4
Until now, the problem biographers have encountered when dealing with Frances's
side of the Nelson story is that comparatively few of her letters survive in the
otherwise voluminous Nelson archive. Only seventy-four of her letters to him can
now be traced as opposed to almost 250 letters from Nelson to her and these cover
only the years 1794 and 17971800.5 Nelson habitually destroyed her letters even
before their marriage encountered difficulties for example, on the eve of the attack
on Tenerife in July 1797 her son Josiah Nisbet, then serving with his stepfather as a
lieutenant, found him burning some Frances's letters.6 As a result Frances has beenjudged, usually most unfairly, on the strength of a wholly unrepresentative body of
material and there has arisen what one of Nelsons latest biographers rightly dismisses
as, 'the lasting myth'7 of Francess inadequacy and coldness.
This is particularly true of the breakdown of the marriage. Nelson's version of events
is minutely recorded in the letters he wrote almost daily to Emma Hamilton, all of
which she carefully kept. Although he destroyed her replies, many of Emma's letters
to other correspondents notably Sarah Nelson, wife of Nelson's brother William
have survived; as have the letters of a number of other participants in the drama. From
these it is clear that Emma worked hard to establish her version of the story, in which
Frances was, unsurprisingly, cast as the villainess and, despite the sensible caution of
some historians, this biased version still appears in biographies. On the other hand,
Frances's point of view of the events has hitherto been represented by only a small
handful of letters a dozen at the most each of which was clearly constructed very
carefully, sometimes painfully, so as to conceal her true feelings and bring about a
reconciliation with her husband. As a result, her story has never been told fairly. For
example, the editor of Nelsons letters and dispatches, Sir Nicholas Harris Nicolas,
claimed that after the couple parted in January 1801, 'Lady Nelson never made the
slightest effort to recover his affection; nor was it until 23rd April that [Nelson]
signified his determination to be "left to himself."'8 New documentary evidence has
recently been located that enables us to demonstrate that both these statements arefalse. Indeed, the first cruelly wrongs Frances: as we shall see, the new evidence
shows that she did all that a woman in her situation could do to save her marriage.
122
7/30/2019 c.white.the wife tale:francrs lady nelson and the break-up of her marriage
4/23
Alexander Davison (1804); mezzotint by Abbott, Lemuel Francis (artist); Barnard,William (engraver); Andrews, George (publisher). Neg. No. B141; NMM.
The new material is a remarkable series of seventy-two letters written by Frances
Nelson to Alexander Davison. They were discovered in 2001 by Martyn Downer of
Sothebys, literally in a trunk in the attic, in the home of one of Davisons direct
descendants. When they were examined, it soon became clear that a significant
number dated from the time of the break-up of the Nelson marriage and that they
offered a fascinating insight into Francess feelings and actions at that unhappy time.
Sold at Sotheby's on Trafalgar Day 2002, the Davison Archive was acquired by the
National Maritime Museum and the letters have now been arranged in chronological
order and catalogued.9 A full-scale scholarly study of the whole series is planned but,in the meantime, this article is offered as an initial assessment of the letters and, in
particular, of the new light they throw on the breakdown of the Nelson marriage. The
opportunity has also been taken to include other new material, relating to this period
and recently located by the Nelson Letters Project.10
All this new material not only enables us to challenge some key aspects of the
traditional accounts of the breakdown, it also helps us to explain some of the
complexities that have hitherto baffled historians. Above all, we can now construct a
new and more accurate narrative that is much fairer to Frances and thus likely to be
closer to the truth. If we liken the traditional story to a string quartet, it is as if the first
and second violin as represented by Nelson and Emma have been allowed to
monopolise the theme, accompanied only by the double bass commentary from their
family and friends. Hitherto, the voice of the viola has been almost entirely missing.
Now, as a result of the discovery of this important series of letters, Frances can be
allowed to join in the melody and make her own distinctive contribution. And, as we
will see, the addition of her voice adds poignancy and sweetness to the music that was
not present before.
He treated her with every mark of dislike and even of contempt
Tense reunion
123
7/30/2019 c.white.the wife tale:francrs lady nelson and the break-up of her marriage
5/23
NovemberDecember 1800
panied by Sir William and Lady Hamilton,
the King George packet boat at the end of their
ered
On 6 November 1800 Nelson, accom
arrived at Great Yarmouth on board
extraordinary three-month tour across Europe, during which Nelson had been che
by excited crowds and fted by monarchs and politicians at almost every stop.
"Dido in despair" (1801): caricature of Emma Hamilton by Gillray, James (artist &
engraver); Humphrey, H (publisher).Neg. No. PW3874; NMM.
t
his very obvious infatuation with Emm
e
But beneath the public cheering, an undercurrent of gossip was already flowing abou
a Hamilton, and this gossip had found its way
into the fashionable salons of Bath and London, and thus into the newspapers and
caricatures. Historians have always assumed that Frances Nelson must have been
aware of the gossip and we now have documentary evidence that she was. So, for
example, in one of the newly-discovered letters to Davison, dated 2 March 1801, sh
reminded him,
Do recollect the Numbers who openly mentioned the subject to me Even at theDrawing Room [i.e. at Court] and Lord St Vincent's long conversation twelve months
before his Lordship's arrival.11
Or again, almost two years before, on 11 April 1799, she had told him, 'Lord Hood
always expressed his fears that Sir W & Lady Hamilton would use their influence to
keep Lord Nelson with them: they have succeeded.'12 Even Nelson's elderly father,
Rev Edmund Nelson, had become aware that all was not well: in a letter dated 18 July
1799, Frances tells Davison that the old man had said that 'if he lived to see
[Nelson] the first thing he should say to him was to take care of me.'13
Even so, it is clear from her letters to Davison, that Frances's mood as she waiteher husband's arrival in the autumn of 1800, was predominantly one of ex
d forcitement
.
and happiness at the thought of seeing him again, mingled with practical concerns
about accommodation. At that time, the Nelsons owned Roundwood, a modest house
and small estate in Suffolk, just outside Ipswich, but they did not have a town house
On 20 September Nelson wrote to Frances from Vienna to telling her that he had
asked Alexander Davison to rent a house for him in London, 'to which I shall instantly
proceed and hope to meet you in the house.'14 He also added that he would arrive 'the
2nd week in October' and that he would be in London for only a very short time.
Frances did not receive this letter at Roundwood until 19 October, and her immediate
preoccupation was with the difficulty of taking a house for such a short time, and at
such short notice. Writing to Davison the next day, she explained that she had sent aletter to her husband, to await his arrival in Yarmouth, saying that she thought it
124
7/30/2019 c.white.the wife tale:francrs lady nelson and the break-up of her marriage
6/23
would be better for them to go into an hotel. She added, 'I begged My Dear Lord just
to stop at his own door for a few minutes and I would have everything ready to sett
off with him.'15 So the seeds were sown for a misunderstanding that was to sour
reunion of husband and wife right from the very start.
Davison replied to Frances's letter urging her to travel straight to London withoutwaiting for her husband. Frances duly obeyed, leaving
the
Roundwood on 23 October
with Nelson's father who had been staying with her and taking rooms at Nerot's Hotel
eron King Street, in fashionable St James's. She took the precaution of sending anoth
letter to her husband in Yarmouth telling him of her change of plan. However, when
Nelson eventually arrived a fortnight later, he and the Hamiltons were swept into a
busy programme of public events and so, as he told Frances in a hurriedly scribbled
note on 6 November, 'I have only had time to open one of your letters my visits are so
numerous.'16 Clearly he opened the first one, in which she had told him that she
would wait for him at Roundwood for, when he and the Hamiltons set off for the
London the following day, they called off at Roundwood only to discover that
Frances was already in London. It was an inauspicious start and meant that Nelsowas already irritated and embarrassed when he and Frances finally met up at Nero
at about 3.00pm on the 7th.
In the past, Frances and Nelson have each been blamed for this incident. Some
historians have suggested tha
nt's
t Nelson forgot that, in his letter from Vienna on 20
September, he had told Frances to wait for him in London.17 Others have seen it as
yet another example of Francess ineffectiveness as a wife.18 Thanks to the Dav
archive, we can now see that it was simply an unfortunate misunderstanding that
would have been avoided if Nelson had opened all of Francess letters while he was
Yarmouth.
The next two months were for the Nelsons a painful mixture of public triumph and
private distr
ison
in
ess that have been well-documented in most of the biographies.19 There
were banquets, appearances at the theatre and official attendance in the House of
Lords and at Court so much so, that on 24 November, old Edmund Nelson wrote
plaintively to his daughter Catherine Matcham, 'your bro is so constantly on the
wing that I can get but a short glimpse myself.'20 As Jack Russell remarks, 'Nelso
was showing a disposition to keep clear of Fanny, or at least to avoid her company b
being in company.'
n
y
21 Nothing in the newly discovered archive throws any light on
Frances's feelings at this critical and awkward time. The only document dating from
this period is a list she prepared on 18 November of Nelson's jewels.22 However wedo know of a number of public incidents that show tension was high between the
couple. For example, less than a week after Nelson's arrival in London, he treated
Frances 'with every mark of dislike and even of contempt' at a dinner at the house of
the First Lord of the Admiralty, Lord Spencer, causing her to break down and tell
hostess, Lady Spencer, of her unhappy situation.
her
23 However it should be remembe
that this story was related by Lady Spencer some years after the event, and it is likely
that she improved on it with hindsight.
After Nelson's death, Emma Hamilton, assisted by Nelson's family and friends,
succeeded in establishing the idea that F
red
rances made Nelson desperately unhappy at
this time. In Harrison's biography of Nelson, published in 1806 and written underEmma's direct guidance, we are told,
125
7/30/2019 c.white.the wife tale:francrs lady nelson and the break-up of her marriage
7/23
At the obvious coldness of her ladyship, however, the warmth of his affectionate hear
felt a petrifying chill, which froze forever the genial current of supreme regard that
had hitherto flowed with purity through
t
the inmost recesses of his soul.24
t 4.00 in
the morning and threw himself on the bed 'in an agony of grief much too poignant for
Harrison is also the source of the story of an argument between them so painful that
Nelson left the house even though it was late at night. Having walked for hoursthrough the streets of London, he finally arrived at the Hamiltons lodgings a
expression.'25 However, Harrison then undermines any trust we may have in his
veracity by adding that the very same day Nelson went to the Admiralty and offe
his services in any capacity. In fact we know that Nelson had already volunteered for
active service some weeks before. On 6 November, the day of his arrival in
Yarmouth, he wrote to Evan Nepean, the Secretary to the Admiralty saying, 'my
health being perfectly re-established, it is my wish to serve immediately.'
red
26
Portrait of Nelson by John Hoppner (1800). Royal Naval Museum; used by
permission.
Certainly, Nelson was unhappy and this can be seen most strikingly in the very
pner,
ooks haggard and haunted.27
powerful oil sketch of him painted at this time by the court portraitist John Hop
in which he l But the warm expressions of love and
continuing affection that Frances uses about him in her letters to Davison mean that
3
we now have documentary evidence with which to refute Emma's accusations of
coldness. It is much more likely that Nelson's unhappiness was due to guilt and to the
awkwardness of trying to settle down with his wife while, at the same time,maintaining a relationship with his mistress. We can see this tension, and resulting
depression, vividly expressed in a letter he wrote to Emma early in the morning of
January 1801, just before he set off to attend the funeral of Captain William Locker,
one of his early mentors,
It is now Six Oclock and I dread the fatigue of this day being not in the best Spirits,
and believe Me when I say that I regret that I am not the person being attended upon
at this Funeral, for although I have had my days of Glory, yet I find this World so full
of Jealousys & envy that I see but a very faint gleam of future comfort.28
And, of course, his sense of being torn in two would have been heightened by the fact
that Emma was by now about to give birth to their child. Scarcely surprising then, that
126
7/30/2019 c.white.the wife tale:francrs lady nelson and the break-up of her marriage
8/23
he longed to get back to sea, away from the increasing complexity of his private life.
elson was promoted to Vice Admiral of the Blue on 1 January and on the 9th he
as second in command of the Channel Fleet in HMS
d at the head of his boarding party at the Battle of
97. On 13 January he left London in company with his
t time that he and Frances ever saw each other.
e
I only wish people would never mention My Name to you
Confused messages
JanuaryFebruary 1801
N
received orders to hoist his flag
San Josef, which he had capture
Cape St Vincent in February 17
brother William it was the las
We now come to the critical period when the irrevocable rift occurred and, thanks tothe new material, Frances's part in the story, hitherto obscure, can be reconstructed
with some precision. As soon as her husband left London, she started writing to
Davison again, using him both as a confidant and as a source of information about her
husband. In doing this, she was reviving an old habit, for the earlier letters in th
Davison Archive show that she had used him in this way before her husband returned
to England. For example, on 18 July 1799, she had written, 'You are very good to us
for truly we know nothing of My Dear Husband but what you communicate to
me.'29 It is clear from all the sources that Frances did not realise that, when her
husband left her on 13 January, he intended it to be a final parting. There is no hint of
it in her letters to Davison and many years later, her friend Lady Berry, wife of
Nelson's flag captain at the Nile, Sir Edward Berry, told Nicolas that 'when sheparted from her Lord, on his hoisting his flag again, it was without the most distant
suspicion that he meant it to be final and that in this life they were never to meet
again.'30 But material located by the Nelson Letters Project shows that the signs were
already there. First, there is a memorandum in Nelson's hand that has previously been
thought to date from March 1801 but which the new research shows must have bee
written at this time. In it, he divides his income in half, allocating Frances an
allowance of 2,000 a year.
n
31 Then there is a formal letter in the third person, which
he wrote to Frances on 9 January, 'Lord Nelson directs all his papers parchments &
freedoms should be delivered to the charge of his brother the Revd William
Nelson.'32 This confirms that the couple were no longer living together by then and
shows that Nelson was taking from Frances any possessions that he regarded as his
own and, moreover, using brother William to do this unpleasant errand for him.
Finally, legal documents in the British Library show that, on 10 January, the couple
went together to Lincoln's Inn where they appeared before Thomas Ryder, the Deput
Steward of the Manor of Christ Church, of which Roundwood was a part. The
purpose of their visit was to surrender their property and the documents reveal that
Frances was 'first examined separately and apart from her said Husband touching
her Consent to the surrenderand freely and voluntarily consented thereto as the La
requires.'
y
w
33 Roundwood had proved an unfortunate purchase it was too far from
London and from the three main naval ports of Portsmouth, Plymouth and Chatham
and was moreover not in good condition. As early as April 1799, Frances had toldDavison that her agent had given her a bad account of the state of the house 'roof
127
7/30/2019 c.white.the wife tale:francrs lady nelson and the break-up of her marriage
9/23
very leaky, the walls are in a bad state, in short not fit for me to inhabit.'34 Even so,
this gradual stripping away from Frances of some key symbols of their life together
coupled with the division of their income, is very telling and shows how Nelson's
mind was already tending when he said goodbye to her in January 1801.
However, like so many absconding partners before and after him, Nelson was clearlyunable to tell Frances to her face that the marriage was over and relied on her to pick
up the signals he was sending. And we can now see, thanks to the letters in the
Davison archive, that those signals were contradictory. So, for example, al
,
though
some of his letters to her immediately after their parting are taken up with irritable
rtly
to your tristesse
complaints about her inefficient packing of his belongings, he usually ends them
'Your affectionate, Nelson'. We now know that she even received a friendly letter
from Emma Hamilton at this time. Although not dated, it was clearly written sho
after Nelson's departure on 13 January,
My Dear Lady Nelson
I wou'd have done myself the honner of calling on you & Mr Nelson this day but I am
not well nor in spirits and wou'd not add Sir William & self feil the
Loss of our good friend our Saviour I may call him the good Lord Nelson permit me
he pleasure of seeing you & hoping my Dear Lady Nelson the
Continuance of your friendship which will be in Sir William & self for ever lasting to
ll to pay his respects
I beg my compliments & to Capn Nesbit.35
in the morning to have t
you & your family your Ladyship's ever obliged & affectionate
Emma Hamilton
Sir William begs to say as an old & true friend to Lord Nelson if he can be of any use
to you in his Lordship's absence he shall be very happy & will ca
to you & Mr Nelson to whom
Emma, Lady Hamilton; pastel by Johann Heinrich Schmidt (1800). Neg. No. A4288;
NMM.
Frances does not mention any visit from the Hamiltons in her letters to Davison and,
bearing in mind that Emma was by then within days of giving birth, it is doubtful that
128
7/30/2019 c.white.the wife tale:francrs lady nelson and the break-up of her marriage
10/23
Frances received from Emma and we now know that, very shortly after, Emma
suddenly went onto the offensive against a woman she clearly perceived as a rival. On
,
5 February Frances wrote to Davison 'I will relate you a thing which seems nothing
but coming from Lady Hamilton I am certain some mischief is brewing.' By then, she
had left London and taken up lodgings in Brighton and the story she told is a
convoluted account of some gossip relayed to her by her housekeeper. ApparentlyEmma had been heard to say how surprised she was at Lady Nelson's leaving London
and parting with all her servants because 'to My Knowledge Lord Nelson allows
her 2000 a year and with that she might make a very pretty appearance.' As Frances
commented to Davison 'It was the talk of the kitchen.None of us I believe like the
servants to know our incomes.'36
There is plenty of other evidence that Emma was mischief-making at this time. In the
British Library are a number of letters from her to Mrs Sarah Nelson, wife of brother
William and it is clear that Emma was doing her best to woo the couple onto her side.
On 20 February she wrote, 'you
souls were congenial not so with Tom tit
and I liked each other from the moment we met our
37 for their was an antipathy not to bedescribed.' This first appearance of Emma's cruel little nickname for Frances (a
reference to her awkward way of walking) shows that she was already setting out to
ridicule her and, from then on, she did all she could to blacken Frances's name.
Indeed, it is not too strong to say that she came to hate her. By September 1801, she
was calling her 'a very wicked artful womana wicked false malicious wretch who
rendered [Nelsons] days wretched and his nights miserable.'38 The Frances Nel
Myth was already well under way.
So what had happened to bring about this change in Emma's attitude? There is no
evidence to provide us with a firm answer but an informed guess might be that
Frances rejected Emma's apparently friendly overtures in January, thus showing that
she was not prepared to play the complacent spouse as Sir William Hamilton was
doing. And if she was not prepared to play the gam
son
e, then she had to be eliminated.
s no
e
had
Worse still from Emma's point of view, Frances clearly did not realise that she wa
longer expected to play an active part in Nelson's life, continuing to write to him as if
nothing had happened and sending him copies of newspapers. Moreover, thanks to th
new archive, we now know that she made her first attempt to rejoin her husband,
scarcely a month after he had left her. Around the second week in February, she
learned through her son Josiah Nisbet that Nelson was suffering from an inflammation
of his good eye. 'Upon this,' she told Davison on 20 February,
My affection My anxiety My fondness for him all rushed forth and I wrote him last
Wednesday week and offered to Nurse him and that he should find me the same I
ever been to him, faithful, affec. and desirous to everything I could to please him.39
The letter in which she made this offer to Nelson has not survived clearly, he
destroyed it.
A visit from Frances was, of course, the last thing that either Nelson or Emma wanted
and it is clear from Nelson's letters to Emma at this time that she was getting worried.
'Only rest quiet,' he told her on the 14th,
129
7/30/2019 c.white.the wife tale:francrs lady nelson and the break-up of her marriage
11/23
you know that everything is arrainged in my head for all circumstances. You ought to
know that I have a head to plan and a heart to execute whenever it is right and the
time arrives. That person has her separate maintenance. Let us be happy that is in our
power.40
t
used blunt, even harsh, terms:
re I should not have gone on Shore nor
would you have come afloat. I fixed as I thought a proper allowance to enable you to
r
Even so, he now realised that he had to make it clear to Frances that he did not wanto see her again. So, on 17 February, he sat down and wrote to her again and for the
first time he
I have received your letter of the 12th. I only wish people would never mention My
Name to you, for weither I am blind or not it is nothing to any person. I want neither
nursing nor attention. And had you come he
remain quiet and not to be posting from one end of the Kingdom to the other. Weithe
I live or die am ill or Well I want from no one the sensation of pain or pleasure. And I
expect no comfort until I am removed from this World.41
Until now, the only known reference to this letter was in a letter from Nelson to
Emma, dated 17 February in which he tells her 'that person at Brighton' has offered to
come and nurse him, 'but I have sent such an answer that will convince her she will
not be received.'42 The original letter to Frances has not survived for reasons that will
be explained later. It has only emerged now because Frances sent a copy of the e
quoted above in one of her letters to Davison on 24 February once again, the new
archive has enabled us to fill a gap in the story. It clearly came as an appalling shock
'you may suppose the consternation it threw me into,' she wrote and added sadly, 'I
think you had better not mention my name but leave me to my fate.' Now, for the first
time, the full truth of her situation was becoming plain to her.
However, Nelson could not keep up this level of harshness for long and the messages
he sent to Frances quickly became confused again. He had by now transferred to
HMS St George in preparation for the expedition to deal with t
xtract
:
he Armed Neutrality of
the North, in which he was to be the second in command. On 20 February, she sailed
ut
for Portsmouth at the start of the build-up of the fleet for the Baltic. Nelson planned to
take the opportunity to visit London for a few days to see his new-born daughter b
he wanted to make sure that Frances did not try to come and see him. So, on 24
February he wrote, signing himself, 'As ever your affectionate Nelson,' to tell her, 'I
would not on any account have you come up to London but rest quiet where you are,'
and then turned to practical matters about Josiah's appointment to the frigate HMSThalia and the selection of his lieutenants.43 In reporting this letter to Davison,
Frances described it hopefully as 'upon the whole milder'.44
Indeed, Nelson went further than this. While he was in London, on 26 February,
Josiah called on him to thank him for his help. Emma had told Sarah Nelson, 'I o
hope he will not come near me. If he does, "not at home" shal
nly
l be the answer.'45 But
Nelson over-ruled her, and few days later she wrote, 'The Cub dined with us but I
never asked how Tom Tit was.'46 Based on these spiteful asides, historians have
supposed until now that the dinner must have been awkward but the new archive
shows that Josiahs memory of it was pleasant and positive. On 15 March, Frances
told Davison,
130
7/30/2019 c.white.the wife tale:francrs lady nelson and the break-up of her marriage
12/23
When [Josiah] returned from seeing my Dear deluded Lord he told me he received
him in the most affectionate manner desiring him to be as much with him as he coul
'Breakfast with
d.
me and I will get you a dinner wherever I dine.' 'Ah,' said Josiah, 'I
told you it would end well, he has the best of hearts.'47
So Frances's hopes began to rise again and this led her to make her third attempt atreconciliation, which earned her another crushing blow.
My terrible letter
The rift widens
March 1801
Bgratitude for her husband'
another letter. Once again, it has not surv
uoyed up by Josiah's report of his warm reception, and with her heart filled withs continued care for her son, Frances now wrote Nelson
ived and once again we only know about it
eference in one of her letters to Davison in which she says that she
k him for his goodness in getting [Josiah] a ship.'48
from a passing r
wrote to 'than She must have
foradded something else perhaps another reference that betrayed that she still hoped
a reconciliation for she received in return what she ever afterwards referred to as
'my terrible letter.'
There are two versions of this letter. First, there is an apparently complete version in
the National Maritime Museum, dated 4 March.49 However, this is clearly a draft it
is on larger paper than Nelson habitually used for his correspondence and has notbeen folded for an envelope. Second, there is an incomplete version in the British
Library.50 This is the version that Frances received, for she has written across it,
as
This is My Lord Nelson's letter of dismissal which so astonished me that I
immediately sent it to Mr Maurice Nelson [Nelson's eldest brother] who was sincerely
attached to me to me for his advice, he desired me not to take the least notice of it,
his brother seemed to have forgot himself.
Frances Nelson's letter to Alexander Davison of 15 March 1801. (Click top or bottom
half to enlarge relevant section.)Neg. Nos. F1331_1, _2; NMM.
We now know that she also sent the letter to Davison for his comments: 'Read the
enclosed letter and let me have it by return of post. I need not express my feelings,'51
she wrote on 15 March.
131
7/30/2019 c.white.the wife tale:francrs lady nelson and the break-up of her marriage
13/23
Most of the letter that Frances received, now in the British Library, is missing and so
we have only the text of the NMM draft as an indication of its contents. It has been
ade by earlier editors and repeated in some
printed many times but it is worth quoting in full again, so that it can be compared
with Nelson's earlier letter of 17 February quoted above. It is presented here exactly
as Nelson wrote it, without the slight errors of transcription, and changes in spelling,
punctuation and capitalisation, mbiographies:
St George, March 4th: 1801
Josiah is to have another ship & to go abroad if the Thalia cannot soon be got ready. I
have done all for him, & he may again as he has so often done before Wish Me to
Break my Neck,52 and be abetted in it by his friends who are likewise My Enem
but I have done m
ies
y duty as an honest generous man, & I neither want or wish for any
f Me, weither I return or am left in the Baltic. Living I
Dead you will find I have done the same,
body to care what becomes o
have done all in my power for you, and If
therefore my only wish is to be left to Myself and wishing you every happinessBelieve that I am Your affectionate
Nelson & Bronte53
This is indeed a brusque letter - but does it really justify Frances's description of it, in
her letters to Davison, as 'terrible'? It is, on the whole, less harsh than Nelson's letter
of 17 February. Two possible explanations present themselves. The first is that
Frances was particularly hurt by the unkind reference to Josiah it must have been
especially distressing after her hopes
account of his meeting with his stepfather
had been raised by her son's very positive
on 26 February. The second is that the final
version of the letter contained other, harsher, material not included in the earlier draft
and possibly supplied by Emma. In support of this supposition, it is interesting to
note that, although the draft is dated 4 March, the final letter was not actually sent
until 11 March, the day before the fleet sailed from Great Yarmouth for the Baltic
plenty of time for Nelson to submit his first version to Emma and to receive her
amendments.54 And in case this may seem a far-fetched theory, it is worth
remembering that this is exactly what happened with a letter he wrote to his father in
October 1801 in reply to one that appeared to reproach him for his irregular way of
living. He submitted a relatively mild draft to Emma, who then toughened it up.55
The difference in the dates of the two versions of the letter has not been noticed by
previous historians and so they have missed the particularly cruel irony that Nels'letter of dismissal' to his wife was eventually posted on the fourteenth anniversary of
their wedding. It seems, however, that this did not escape Frances's notice for,
instead of being located with all her husband's other letters, the 11 March letter is
filed separately next to her copy of their marriage certificate.56
on's
Thanks to the material in the Davison archive, we can now resolve a question that has
puzzled historians why is part of the 11 March letter missing? On 2 March,
obviously in response to a worried enquiry from Davison, Frances wrote,
Be assured I never spoke of my extreme Misery at the loss of his affection to anyo
but those who had been Eye Witnesses and yourselfNo one shall know of these
ne
harsh and cruel letters.57
132
7/30/2019 c.white.the wife tale:francrs lady nelson and the break-up of her marriage
14/23
It would seem that, true to her word, she destroyed the 17 February letter altog
and cut away the 'harsh and cruel' section of the 11 March letter, leaving on
ether
ly her
husband's statement that he wished to be left to himself. It was not her fault that the
, displaying a loving devotion to her husband, and a carefor his reputation, that deserves to be better acknowledged than it has been in the past.
stock. In the light of all the new evidence,
enuinely trying to remain on friendly terms with Frances and her son providing
at she respected his wishes about living apart. Having forced her submission by his
. But he
full
misread his attempts to be friendly and to repeat her
in turn forced him to write the second harsh letter. Of
ct
contents of both those letters have eventually to light the former through Davison's
copy and the latter through her husband's own draft. Once again, Frances emerges
from this story with dignity
Let everything be buried in oblivion
Frances's final attempts at reconciliation
MarchDecember 1801
This is a good moment to pause and takewe can now see that, at least in the early stages of the separation, Nelson was
g
th
harsh letter of 17 February, he was then prepared to be conciliatory
underestimated the power of her love for him, and her longing for a
reconciliation, which led her to
attempt to win him back. This
course, none of this exonerates him; but it is clear that he did at least try to settle
matters amicably. As for Frances: far from making no effort to recover her husband's
affection, as Nicolas and subsequent biographers have wrongly suggested, she in fa
kept on repeating her willingness to forgive him and to accept him back. Indeed, asshe promised Davison, as late as 26 June, 'I will make it my study to obey him in
every wish or desire of his And with cheerfulness.'58
The one wish or desire of her husband's, however, Frances would not obey was to
leave him alone. Despite the shock of this second harsh letter, she still continued to
try to find ways to bring about a reconciliation. The next straw she clutched at was the
matter of a house. On 8 March Susannah Bolton, Nelson's elder sister, wrote to her,
Will you excuse what I am going to say? I wish you had continued in town a little
longer as I have heard my brother regretted he had not a house he could call his ow
when he returned. Do, whenever you hear he is likely to r
n
eturn, have a house to
receive him. If you absent yourself from him entirely there can never be a
reconciliation.59
Almost pathetically eager to please, Frances immediately wrote to Davison, 'I shall
without loss of time through your goodness procure a good house in the part of Town
you think will be liked by Lord Nelson.' But this only got her into more trouble
because Emma got to hear of her quest and complained to Nelson, who replied on 9
April that he had not written to Frances since he sailed from England, 'and all the
parade about a house is nonsense.'60
By now, Davison was in a most awkward position. At the same time that he was
133
7/30/2019 c.white.the wife tale:francrs lady nelson and the break-up of her marriage
15/23
receiving these regular confidences and commissions from Frances, he was also
acting as a go-between for Nelson and Emma. So, for example, on 7/8 February, he
paid Nelson a visit on board his flagship, HMS San Josef, in Torbay. The day be
he left London, he received Frances's letter, quoted earlier, telling him that 'some
mischief is brewing' and blaming Emma for it. However we know that he also call
on Emma before leaving, because he c
fore
ed
arried with him a letter from her to Nelson,together with a verbal message. 'He says,' reported Nelson, 'you told him to tell me
dnot to send you any more advice about seeing company for that you are determine
not to allow the World to say a word against you.'61 Despite a rough passage out
the ship a recently located note from Nelson warns him, 'Do not I charge you risk
drowning consult with the boatman as to the Weather'
to
62 Davison duly made his
visit. He then returned to London bearing a pack of letters and notes from Nelson
Emma, which he faithfully delivered. And he also wrote to Frances for, on 20
February, she replied,
I return you many thanks for your letter, the account you give me of My Lord's healt
and his speaking of me with affection are truly good tidings, and I hope in God that athat you say will prove true.
to
h
ll63
Clearly, therefore, despite all the evidence of Nelson's continuing infatuation, Daviso
still hoped at this stage that the marriage could be saved and was encouraging F
to persevere. At the sam
n
rances
e time, however, he was encouraging Emma to think that he
was on her side. Such double-dealing may seem unheroic but he was certainly not
e being on the surface an enthusiastic supporter of
Emma, Parker clearly distrusted her influence on Nelson and confided his true
alone. For example, other letters in the Davison Archive show that Nelson's beloved
young protg, Captain Edward Parker, whom he treated as a son, was also writing
privately to Davison. And, despit
thoughts to Davison, 'that B- will play the devil with Him She is endeavouring to
persuade Him that the Ministry are jealous of his proceedings.'64
In fact, had they but known it, Frances and her supporters had no chance of
persuading Nelson to return to her. He had already committed himself wholly to
Emma and, in early March, he even began to refer to her as his wife, 'Now my own
dear wife,' he wrote 'for such you are in my eyes and the face of heaven.' On 11
March, the very day he sent the 'letter of dismissal' to Frances on their wedding
anniversary, he told Emma she was 'his afflicted Wife that is to be.'65 But it is also
apparent that he was torn apart by the decision he had made. There is a telling phrase
in a letter he wrote to Emma on 17 March less than a week after the 'dismissal'
not
letter
I dreamt last Night that I hurt you with a Stick on account of that fellow & attempted
to throw over [your] head a tub of hot water I woke in agony and my feelings can
be very comfortable.66
'That fellow' was the Prince of Wales, who Nelson was convinced fancied Emma and
so the dream was no doubt related at least in part to his jealousy, as he supposed.
dreams u
But
sually have much deeper roots than the emotion of the moment Freudians,
for example, would have a field-day with the fact that Nelson dreamed of throwing
'hot water' over his mistress! So perhaps his subconscious desire to hurt Emma wasalso the product of his continuing guilt that he had been forced to hurt his wife
134
7/30/2019 c.white.the wife tale:francrs lady nelson and the break-up of her marriage
16/23
because of his love for his mistress?
The Battle of Copenhagen, 2 April 1801, by Nicholas Pocock.Neg. No. BHC0529;
NMM.
Amidst all this emotional turmoil, the surface world of war and battle went on and for
the next three weeks Nelson was preoccupied with the Baltic campaign, culminating
in the Battle of Copenhagen, fought on 2 April. When the news of the victory reached
London on 15 April, Frances could not restrain her affectionate impulses, and made
her fourth attempt at a reconciliation, writing to her husband,
be silent in the general joy throughout the Kingdom, I must express my
thankfulness and happiness it has pleased God to spare your lifeLet me beg, nay
I cannot
entreat you, to believe no wife ever felt greater affection for a husband than I do. And
to the best of my knowledge I have invariably done everything you desired. If I have
omitted any thing I am sorry for it.67
The original of this letter was destroyed (presumably by Nelson) and the contents
only known because Frances kept a draft indeed until now historians have beenunsure whether it was actually sent. A note from Frances to Davison in the new
archive, dated 7 May, confirms that it was: 'I have sent My Lord a Congratulatory
letter and saying at the same time if I had ever done anything which offended him I
was sorry for it.'68
This time Nelson changed tactics. Instead of replying himself, he wrote to Davison on
son
23 April,
You will at the proper time and before my arrival in England signify to Lady Nel
that I expect, and for which I have made such a very liberal allowance to her, to be
left to myself and without any enquires from her.69
This was the letter that Nicolas believed gave the first indication that Nelson wished
ten directly to Frances. But Davison did not obey orders. On the contrary,
he did the opposite of what Nelson wanted and continued to encourage Frances to
Frances to leave him alone we now know of course that there had been two previous
letters writ
hope. As late as 12 July, he wrote to her, 'I have the same opinion I ever had of his
sincere respect for you. I have no right to doubt it.'70 Ever hopeful, Frances took thi
as an encouragement to approach her husband again a
s
nd made her fifth attempt,
writing to him in late July to thank him for her allowance and concluding, 'Be assured,
every wish, every desire of mine is to please the man whose affection constitutes my
happiness.'71 Once again the original has disappeared and historians have beenunsure whether the letter was actually sent. Once again, the Davison letters confirm
135
7/30/2019 c.white.the wife tale:francrs lady nelson and the break-up of her marriage
17/23
that it was: on 22 July Frances tells him that she has written to Nelson.72
Indeed, Davison was not the only member of Nelson's circle who was advising
Frances to persevere. She sent a copy of her April letter to his close friend and fo
Nile captain, Sir Thomas Troubridge, 'who was very much pleased and requested
me to write often to My Lord and he thought it would do no harm and might do somegood.'
rmer
73 And, around the same time, Nelson's father also made a very public
demonstration of support for her. On 14 March he wrote enquiring about her health
and talking about his 'unpleasant feelings respecting yourself as well as my own
thoughts about what indeed in some measure may affect us both.'74 We now know,
own
his
from the Davison letters that Edmund had heard gossip in Bath about the breakd
of Nelson's marriage. As Frances tells the story,
Mrs Jeffreys Wilkes told him of the Reports of Lord Nelson's determination not to
live with Me he was so shocked he could hardly keep his chair. He then told
daughter he wou'd try and get me down here [to Bath] and silence people.75
Frances duly joined her father in law in Bath but as she told Davison ruefully, the old
man's gesture was only partially successful, 'it has [silenced] some but not all Mrs
Matcham tells me it is the conversation before her every where.' Later, on 27 June,
she gave Davison a poignant picture of the old man's distress,
ery
ne a
little out of the straight road. He will see his error and be as good as ever.76
My Old Gentleman is sadly disturbed in short his temper is so very irritable that ev
body is astonished.he says 'My Horace was always a good Boy but He is go
Indeed almost everyone associated with Nelson seems to have shared Edmund's
bewilderment about his unkind treatment of Frances and the belief that he would soo
recognise his error and return to the 'straight road'. Repeatedly i
n
n letters of this period,
his family and friends emphasise how good-hearted Nelson really is as if they are
on 26
June, 'he will not make me Miserable.'77
trying to convince themselves that his affair with Emma, and his resulting cruel
behaviour, is just a temporary aberration. Frances herself, constantly talks of his good
nature, 'he is affectionate and possesses the best of hearts,' she tells Davison
Josiah tells her, after his dinner with his
.'78stepfather on 26 February, 'I told you all would end well, he has the best of hearts
Susannah Bolton reassures her, 'he has not an unfeeling heart,' adding, 'Keep up
your spirits as well as you can and all will do well.'79 And even Davison who, as we
have seen, was better placed than anyone to appreciate the strength of Nelson'spassion for Emma, was still telling Frances in July, 'His heart is so pure and so
extremely good that I flatter myself he never can be divested from his affection.'80
In the light of such unanimous encouragement it is scarcely surprising that Frances
went on hoping and continually tried to effect a reconciliation, despite all that Nelson
could do to deter her. And so, in the end, he was forced to deal her the cruellest blow
of all, for which he has been universally condemned. On 18 December 1801, Frances
made her sixth attempt to win him back, writing to tell him that she now had 'a
comfortable warm house' to offer him.
Do my dear husband let us live together. I can never be happy until such an eventtakes place. I assure you again I have but one wish in the world, to please you. Let
136
7/30/2019 c.white.the wife tale:francrs lady nelson and the break-up of her marriage
18/23
everything be buried in oblivion, it will pass away like a dream.81
By then Nelson was living openly with the Hamiltons at Merton and so she sent the
letter to Davisons London house, presumably trusting that the man who had so
consistently encouraged her to persist in her approaches to her husband would find
some way of ensuring that Nelson saw the letter when Emma was not present.
Such a rejection was hurtful enough but, to Frances, the signature at the end of the
hat he
e again
ness. She
st
Myth
ditor of Nelson's letters and dispatches.icolas had told him that the prevailing opinion was that Nelson had abandoned his
t. 'His father,
and Mrs
atcham, and their husbands,' he wrote, 'well knew that the separation was
navoidable on Lord Nelson's part.'82
However, as is well known, the letter was returned to her with the shocking
annotation, 'Opened by mistake by Lord Nelson but not read. A. Davison.'
curt message must have been the worst blow of all. The man to whom she had
confided her most personal feelings about the pain she was suffering, believing t
sympathised with her and wanted her to succeed, was now exposed as a double-
dealer. Abruptly, her letters to Davison dried up and, when their correspondenc
resumed in June 1803, it was distant and concerned only with matters of busi
must have felt doubly betrayed and humiliated.
She also accepted, finally, that she could not win her husband back. This was her la
attempt to bring about a reconciliation.
Should he receive me with affection I will do every thing for him
Discarding the Frances Nelson
In April 1846, Nelson's former solicitor William Haslewood, then in his late
seventies, wrote a letter to Nicolas, the eN
wife and Haslewood was anxious to defend his former patron and clien
his brother, Dr Nelson (afterwards Earl Nelson) his sisters, Mrs Bolton
M
u He then went on to tell of an incident he
d apparently told her
resolved you shall
while at
ces
ast
pendices in the last
claimed he had witnessed in January 1801, when Frances ha
husband, 'I am sick of hearing of dear Lady Hamilton and am
either give up her or me.' According to Haslewood, Nelson tried to calm her,
the same time repeating his obligations to Emma, upon which,
Without one soothing word or gesture, but muttering something about her mind being
made up, Lady Nelson left the room and shortly after drove from the house. They
never lived together afterwards.
Having thus shifted most of the blame for the separation onto the unfortunate Fran
(who was by then long dead and unable to defend herself), Haslewood added one l
cruel blow, 'to the day of her husband's glorious death she never made any apology
for her abrupt and ungentle conduct above related or any overture towards a
reconciliation.' This letter arrived in time to be included in the ap
volume of Nicolas's great work and so Haslewood's version of the marriage
breakdown has become part of the 'authorised version of Nelson's story.
137
7/30/2019 c.white.the wife tale:francrs lady nelson and the break-up of her marriage
19/23
To their credit, Nelson's more discerning biographers have been uneasy about the way
in which Frances is portrayed in this story, realising that her behaviour, as described
by Haslewood, is totally out of character. But such definite testimony from a man
supposedly impartial, repeated in a work as authoritative as Nicolass, has meant that
the story has continued to be quoted, albeit with caveats. The new evidence presented
here shows that Haslewood's story is false in every verifiable particular.
As we have seen, far from failing to apologise, Frances blamed herself for the
n
If this much of Haslewood's account is demonstrably untrue,83
coolness between herself and her husband and asked for his forgiveness. She made six
separate attempts at reconciliation, which were repeatedly rebuffed, with increasing
harshness. And most of Nelson's family and friends did not believe that a separatio
was 'unavoidable': on the contrary, they did all they could to encourage Frances to
persevere in her attempts to win her husband back.
we can also be
ng
from anyone anything that renders my own fidelity
disputable?' In Hammonds version, Nelson simply replies that he has not. However
d to
confident that his central picture of Frances as the sharp-tongued woman stalki
angrily out of her husband's life is false as well, or at any rate very exaggerated. Buthis story stuck and has contributed as much to the Frances Nelson Myth as Emmas
accusation of coldness a myth memorably personified by Gladys Coopers vivid
portrayal of Frances as a stiff-backed, icy and embittered shrew in the Alexander
Korda film,Lady Hamilton.
There is in fact another more plausible, but lesser-known, account of their final
parting. It was told by Sir Andrew Hammond, an old friend of the Nelsons, who
probably heard the story from Frances herself. In this version, Nelson calls at their
London lodgings shortly before leaving for Plymouth in mid-January 1801 and finds
his wife in bed. She holds out her hand to him and says, 'There is not a man in the
world who has more honour than you. Now tell me, on your honour, whether you
have ever suspected or heard
Frances later told Clark and M'Arthur that Nelson's actual words were, 'I call Go
witness there is nothing in you, or your conduct, that I wish otherwise.'84
Before now, those few of Nelson's biographers who have troubled to repeat this
poignant story have struggled to reconcile this low-key, almost affectionate, parting
with the jagged tension of Haslewood's version and the Grand Opera drama of Em
Hamilton's, as relayed by Harrison. Thanks to the letters of the Davison Archive,
can now see that such attempts at reconciliation are unnecessary. Haslewood's andEmma's versions are equally false the product, on the one hand, of an old mans
misguided attempt to protect his former patrons reputation and, on the othe
ma
we
r, of a
mistresss guilty conscience. It is time, therefore, to discard the Frances Nelson Myth
donce and for all and allow to be heard instead the authentic voice of the loving an
forgiving woman whom Nelson abandoned,
If you do not think I have expressed My feelings My affection and My sincere desire
to do every thing he wishes me I am willing to say more if possible Should he
receive me with affection I will do every thing for him and in a gracious manner he
shall have no reason to regret his goodness to Me I give you my honor.85
138
7/30/2019 c.white.the wife tale:francrs lady nelson and the break-up of her marriage
20/23
ootnotes
a proliferation of intrusive sics, it may be assumed that
all spellings etc. in the quoted passages are shown exactly as written, except
where the footnotes indicate that they have been copied from printed sources.
F
1. Each of the three main correspondents quoted in this article - Nelson, Frances
Nelson and Emma Hamilton - used idiosyncratic spelling, capitalisation and
punctuation. To avoid
elson (FN) to Alexander Davison (AD), 26 June 1801, NMM2. Frances N
DAV/2/50. [ ]
3. A.T. Mahan, The Life of Nelson, I, p.386.
4. G. Bennett,Nelson the Commander, p.184.
5. Frances Nelson's letters to her husband only came into the public domain
when the Nelson Papers were purchased from Lord Bridport by the British
Museum in 1895. Even then, they were little used by biographers and it was
not until 1958 that they were finally collected together by Katherine Lindsay-
MacDougall and published in G. Naish,Nelson's Letters to his Wife. Unti
then, they were known only from a few very selective, and unrepresentative,
l
tters oextracts quoted by Sir Nicholas Harris Nicolas in hisDispatches and LeLord Nelson.
6. Nelson did not destroy only his wife's letters - it would seem that it was his
usual practice to destroy personal letters, especially before a battle. So, for
example, very few letters to him have survived from his father, or his early
mentors such as Maurice Suckling or William Locker.
7. T. Coleman,Nelson p.75.
8. Nicholas Harris Nicolas, The Dispatches and Letters of Vice Admiral lord
Nelson, VII, p.392.
9. The full catalogue is available online and may be viewed via the National
Maritime Museum's Library and Manuscripts
catalogue www.nmm.ac.uk/librarycatalogue. (Enter the search term "Daviso
Alexander" in the Title field.)
10. The Nelson Letters Project, sponsored jointly by the National Maritime and
Royal Naval Museums, is currently undertaking a systematic survey of all the
For
at is
available collections of Nelson letters aimed at locating and cataloguing any
that are unpublished. To date, over 1000 unpublished letters have been
identified and they are currently being transcribed for publication in 2005.
a brief description of the Project, and an analysis of the type of material th
being discovered, see, C. White, 'The Nelson Letters Project',Mariners
Mirror, 87, November 2001. An update on the Project's progress will bepublished in the Mariners Mirror in November 2003.
139
7/30/2019 c.white.the wife tale:francrs lady nelson and the break-up of her marriage
21/23
11. FN to AD, 2 March 1801, NMM DAV/2/31.
12. FN to AD, 11 April 1799, NMM DAV/2/7.
13. FN to AD, 18 July 1799, NMM DAV/2/16.
14. Naish, op. cit. p.496.
15. FN to AD, 20 October 1800, NMM DAV/2/24.16. Naish, op. cit., p.496.
17. For example, J. Russell,Nelson and the Hamiltons, p. 142.
18. For example, T. Pocock,Horatio Nelson, p.217.
d
owever, the book has no
nd properly sourced, in
the marriage breakup, as does Coleman, op. cit.
19. The best account of this period to date is in Jack Russell's book,Nelson an
the Hamiltons, which includes some of the material cited in this article
(although not material from the Davison Archive). H
footnotes, and only a basic list of sources. So, much of the material that
Russell consulted has only recently been relocated, a
the course of the Nelson Letters Project. Naish op. cit. also includes a good
narrative of
20. Edmund Nelson to Katherine Matcham, 24 November 1800, NMM: MAM/44.
21. Russell, op. cit., p.142.
22. NMM: DAV/2/26.
23. Quoted in Richard Edgecombe, The Diary of Frances Lady Shelley.
24. James Harrison, The Life of the Right Honourable Horatio Lord Viscount
Nelson, II, p.270.
25.Ibid.,II, p.278.
26. Nicolas, op. cit., IV, p.267.
covered only recently
al sketch, done from the
to Nelson's mood at this time.
27. Royal Naval Museum 19992/407. This portrait was dis
and it has been established that is Hoppner's origin
life. (See R. Walker, The Nelson Portraits .p. 242) It therefore gives us a
fascinating glimpse in
28. Nelson (HN) to Emma Hamilton (EH), 3 January 1801, Unpublished letter in
private collection.
29. FN to AD, 18 July 1799, NMM DAV/2/16.
30. Nicolas, op. cit., II, p.354.
31. British Library (BL): Add Mss 28333 f.5. Published in Naish, op. cit. 580. Tmemorandum is undated. Naish dates it 4 March and subsequent biograph
have followed this. I date it earlier for the following reasons: (1) Nelson signs
himsel
heers
f simply 'Nelson' and, by 4 March he was using the 'Nelson & Bronte'
allowance in early February
red
form. (2) It is clear from a reference in one of Frances's letters to Davison, that
Emma Hamilton knew of the amount of Frances's
(see Note 36 below). (3) Nelson refers to the allowance in a newly-discove
letter to Frances dated 17 February (see Note 41 below).
32. HN to FN, 9 January 1801, BL Add Mss 34902, f.181.
33. BL Add Mss 30170, f.28.34. FN to AD, 22 April 1799, NMM DAV/2/10.
140
7/30/2019 c.white.the wife tale:francrs lady nelson and the break-up of her marriage
22/23
35. EH to FN, No date (? Mid January 1801) Private collection. This letter has
always been in private collections and so has never before been transcribed in
full.
36. FN to AD, 5 February 1801, NMM DAV/2/27.
37. EH to Sarah Nelson, 20 February 1801, BL Add Mss 34089, f.36/7.
38. Naish, op. cit., 592.
39. FN to AD, 20 February 1801, NMM DAV/2/29.
40. Russell, op. cit., p.171.
41. Quoted in FN to AD 24 February 1801, NMM DAV/2/30. Until the discovery
of this copy in the Davison Archive, the existence of this letter was unknown.
42. Part of this letter was published by Pettigrew (Vol I pp. 427-8) but this
particular passage was edited out and was only restored when the original
Fiske for drawing myexamined some years ago. I am indebted to Mr Ron
attention to the existence of the missing passage.
43. Naish, op. cit., p .691.44. FN to AD 2 March 1801, NMM DAV/2/31.
45. EH to Sarah Nelson, 26 February 1801, BL: Add Mss 34989, f. 42/3.
46. EH to Sarah Nelson, 2 March, BL: Add Mss 34989, f. 45/6.
47. FN to AD, 15 March 1801, NMM DAV/2/32.
48. FN to AD, 2 March 1801, NMM DAV/2/31.
49. NMM: AGC/17/10.
50. BL: Add Mss 28333, f.3/4.
51. FN to AD, 15 March 1801, NMM DAV/2/32.
52. This phrase offers a good illustration of why it is important to transcribe
rs do not appear to have appreciated that Nelson often used
n
n with which he wrote the
Nelson's letters as closely as possible to the way he wrote actually them.
Earlier edito
capitals to emphasise words. So, here, the capitalisation of the phrase "Wish
Me to Break my Neck" makes it stand out from the rest of the text, as Nelso
clearly intended, and vividly conveys the indignatio
words.
53. Most of the text of the British Library letter has been cut away and the
remaining text begins at the words, 'or am left in the Baltic'. The
surviving text is identical to the text of the draft.
54. The NMM draft is clearly dated 4 March. The section of the BL lettercontaining the date has been cut away but the envelope has survived and it is
dated (in Nelson's handwriting), 'Yarmouth March Eleventh 1801'.
55. For a full exposition of this story see Russell, op. cit., pp.239-40.
56. Most of Frances Nelson's letters from her husband are now in the archi
the Nelson Museum, Monmouth. However the 'dismissal' letter is in a separate
ve of
ning
om the rest of her husband's letters.
file, along with the marriage certificate and the legal documents concer
the sale of Roundwood, in the British Library (Add Mss. 28333). It would
seem that Frances deliberately filed these key documents relating to her
marriage separately fr
141
7/30/2019 c.white.the wife tale:francrs lady nelson and the break-up of her marriage
23/23
57. FN to AD, 2 March 1801, NMM DAV/2/31.
58. FN to AD, 26 June 1801, NMM DAV/2/50.
59. Naish, op. cit., p. 582.
60. HN to EH, 9 April 1801, A Morrison, The Hamilton & Nelson Papers, II
p.136.
61.Ibid., II, p. 112.62. HN to AD, (Undated), BL: Eg 2240, f.47.
63. FN to AD, 20 February 1801, NMM DAV/2/29.
64. Edward Parker to AD, 9 August 1801, Private collection.
65. Morrison, op. cit., II, p. 123.
66. HN to EH, 17 March 1801, NMM MON/1/8.
67. Naish, op. cit., p. 585,
68. FN to AD, 7 May 1801, NMM DAV/2/44.
69. Nicolas, op. cit., VII, p. ccix.
70. Naish, op. cit., 589.
71.Ibid, p. 588.72. FN to AD, 22 July 1801, NMM DAV/2/49.
73. FN to AD, 7 May 1801, NMM DAV/2/44.
74. Naish, op. cit., p. 583.
75. FN to AD, Undated - but clearly dating from May 1801, NMM DAV/2/71.
76. FN to AD, 27 June 1801, NMM DAV/2/51.
77. FN to AD, 26 June 1801, NMM DAV/2/50.
78. FN to AD, 20 February 1801, NMM DAV/2/ 29.
79. Naish, op. cit. p.582.
80.Ibid., p.588.
81.Ibid., p. 596.
82. Nicolas, op. cit. VII, p. 391.
ith
83. It should also be remembered that Haslewood even told Horatia a direct lie
about who her mother was, claiming that she was a lady 'well acquainted w
Lady Hamilton.' See Carola Oman,Nelson, p. 674.
84. Clarke and M'Arthur, op. cit. Vol II, p.380.85. FN to AD, 27 June 1801, NMM DAV/2/51.
NMM London
Top Related