The official website for BBC History Magazine
9 things you might not know about Sherlock Holmes
The fictional detective Sherlock Holmes, created by Arthur Conan Doyle, has for more than 130 years been a star of stage and screen, played by actors including Benedict Cumberbatch and Ian McKellen and serialised in countless books. But how much do you know about this famous crime-buster, who made his first appearance in 1887 in Beeton's Christmas Annual? Here, author Martin Davies shares 11 lesser-known facts about Sherlock Holmes...
1. The first actor to play Sherlock Holmes was American… The first actor to take on the role of Sherlock Holmes in any official capacity was the American William Gillette. His 1899 stage play was adapted from a script by Arthur Conan Doyle himself. Opening six years after the author had attempted to kill off his creation at the Reichenbach Falls, the play was a huge success on both sides of the Atlantic: between 1899 and 1932, Gillette performed the role more than 1,000 times. Gillette is also credited with introducing the curved briar pipe that was to become synonymous with the great detective – possibly because a straight pipe obscured the actor’s face when he delivered his lines. On the podcast | Sherlock Holmes: the real history that inspired the detective stories On first meeting Sherlock Holmes’ creator, Gillette is said to have appeared in character, complete with deerstalker, and after examining Conan Doyle most minutely, to have opined: “Unquestionably an author!” 2. … who introduced a love interest Gillette was also one of the first to annoy the purists by introducing a love interest for Holmes. When he telegraphed Conan Doyle with the question “May I marry him?” the author is said to have replied: “You may marry him, or murder or do what you like with him!” It’s impossible to count the number of writers who, since then, have taken Doyle at his word. Read more | Real-life Sherlocks: the detectives of Scotland Yard and their curious cases 3. He defied death Holmes, having survived the Reichenbach Falls, refused to die with his creator. By the time of Conan Doyle’s death on 7 July 1930, Holmes was already a star of stage and screen. His film debut, Sherlock Holmes Baffled, came as early as 1900. Just a few seconds long, the film used stop-motion camerawork to show Holmes attempting to grapple with a burglar who repeatedly disappears, then reappears in a different part of the room. 4. A 1940s duo cemented Holmes and Watson's on screen personas One of the oldest surviving film adaptations of Conan Doyle’s work dates to 1916 (William Gillette again) but it was the English duo of Basil Rathbone and Nigel Bruce in the 1940s who for many years became identified in the public imagination as the Holmes and Watson. Rathbone and Bruce made 14 Sherlock Holmes films between 1939 and 1946 (and starred in more than 200 dramatisations for American radio), yet only the first two films were set in the Victorian period. The others had a contemporary setting, allowing Sherlock Holmes to pursue Nazi spies and to urge the purchase of war bonds. Bruce’s dim, bumbling Watson tends to infuriate Holmes purists. 5. He inspired hundreds of parodies The Adventures of ChubbLock Homes, an early comic strip, appeared in Comic Cuts magazine as early as 1893, and the urge to parody the great detective has never gone away. In 1901, while William Gillette’s official Holmes play was running in London, audiences at Terry’s Theatre were enjoying performances of the rather more frivolous Sheerluck Jones. The comic strip Sherlocko & Watso was hugely popular in the USA in the early 20th century, and silent film parodies abounded. Later in the century, Peter Cook and John Cleese both played comedy Sherlocks on film (Cleese's character was Arthur Sherlock Holmes, Sherlock’s grandson). Less well remembered, perhaps, is the 1976 TV film The Return of the World’s Greatest Detective, in which a youthful Larry Hagman (before his JR Ewing days) played a deluded motorcycle cop, Sherman Holmes. Read more | Women detectives: meet the Victorian female super sleuths 6. Tobacco, cereal and… mouthwash? Holmes has sold it all Even in his early days, Sherlock Holmes was helping manufacturers to sell their products. In the 1890s, the makers of Beecham’s Pills ran advertisements suggesting that the great detective was a devoted user. And as a smoker, Holmes was popular with the tobacco companies. Early cigarette advertisements using Holmes’ image included brands such as Lambert and Butler’s ‘Varsity’ mixture, Chesterfield, Ogden’s, Gallaher’s and Players. Since then, products as diverse as furniture cream, mouthwash, breakfast cereal and photocopiers have all benefited from association with the great man. 6. He debuted on TV to mixed reviews With the growth of television after the Second World War, the Baker Street detective was quick to adapt to the new medium. Alan Wheatley was the first actor to portray Holmes on British television – his 1951 series was broadcast live. But it seems Wheatley was not a fan of Holmes. When asked about Holmes’ character, he is said to have replied: “In my opinion he just seemed to be an insufferable prig”. 7. One actor played Holmes twice… and his brother Peter Cushing appeared as Holmes on the BBC in the 1960s. He had already played the detective in the 1959 Hammer film The Hound of the Baskervilles, alongside Christopher Lee as Sir Henry Baskerville. Lee was to play Holmes himself in a 1962 film; then, nearly 30 years later, he took up the pipe again, playing an ageing Sherlock in two TV films known together as Sherlock Holmes the Golden Years. Throw in an appearance as Mycroft Holmes in Billy Wilder’s The Private Life of Sherlock Holmes, and Sir Christopher almost bagged the complete set. Alas, he never appeared on screen as Doctor Watson. 8. The most prolific Holmes For many people, the definitive portrayal of Sherlock Holmes was by Jeremy Brett, for Granada Television, in the 1980s and 1990s. Brett appeared in 41 episodes, including five feature-length productions. However, even that impressive achievement doesn’t make Brett the most prolific Holmes. That title must go to the British actor Clive Merrison, who played the detective on BBC Radio between 1989 and 1998, and who completed the full canon – dramatisations of all 60 of Conan Doyle’s Holmes stories and novels. 9. Holmes, The Avengers and Britain's most famous secret agent are forever linked on screen And so to Benedict Cumberbatch’s Sherlock, in which Andrew Scott rose to prominence playing Moriarty. Scott has also appeared in the new James Bond film, Spectre, joining an illustrious club of actors who have performed alongside Britain’s most famous spy and Britain’s most famous detective. But only Sir Roger Moore has played both leading roles on film. Sadly his one appearance as Holmes – in the 1976 TV-film Sherlock Holmes in New York – is not, perhaps, his most memorable work. Sean Connery never played Holmes, but he did play the ultra-astute friar William of Baskerville in The Name of the Rose, so you might say that he came close. The actor playing Dr Watson to Roger Moore’s Holmes was Patrick Macnee, most famous as John Steed in The Avengers. Macnee played Watson again, 15 years later, alongside Christopher Lee’s Holmes. Then, in 1993, he donned the deerstalker himself in The Hound of London, thus becoming that very rare thing – an actor who has starred in films as both Holmes and Watson. But all these efforts to breathe new life into Sherlock Holmes might well have been greeted with bemusement by Holmes’ creator, Arthur Conan Doyle, who wrote in a letter in 1892: “Holmes is as inhuman as Babbage’s Calculating Machine.” Martin Davies is the author of Mrs Hudson and the Spirits’ Curse (Canelo, 2015)
Might Jesus and his 12 apostles have something to do with it? Discover the medieval history behind triskaidekaphobia – the fear of the number 13 – and why it is considered an unlucky number
Forget the Ides of March and Halloween – for some, a Friday that also happens to be the 13th of the month is scariest and unluckiest day of the year. The fear of Friday 13th is very real. It's even been given a scientific name, paraskevidekatriaphobia, from the Greek words Paraskeví, meaning Friday, and dekatreís, meaning 13. But what is it about this day and date combo that has given millions the heebie jeebies. Here's what we know of we know about Friday 13th's hazy history. When did people start believing Friday 13th was unlucky? It's believed that this superstition began in the Middle Ages. Some think it's related to the Last Supper, when 13 people were present at the meal before Jesus's crucifixion on Good Friday. Others think it's related to the Knights Templar, who were arrested for heresy on Friday 13 October 1307. But fear of 13 predates Christianity. The number 13 has been considered unlucky for millenia, and by many different cultures around the world. Why is the 13th unlucky? The ancient Romans believed that the number 13 was a bad omen, foretelling ill-fortune and death. The Vikings also hated 13, because in Norse mythology a banquet was held for 12 of the Norse gods during which the trickster god, Loki, appeared uninvited, like the wicked fairy in Sleeping Beauty, and as a result the beloved god Balder died. The Mayans thought that the 13th 'baktun' (a period equivalent to almost 400 years) would spell the end of the world – however, this came and went in 2012. For centuries, hosts avoided having 13 people seated around a dining table, convinced that the first person to leave would die within the year. Indeed, 16th-century witch-hunters often tried to claim there had been 13 people at a gathering – proof that the accused were witches in league with the devil. Why is Friday the 13th unlucky? Why Friday the 13th is considered especially unlucky isn't entirely clear. The first written record we have of the number 13 and Friday being unlucky in conjunction only dates to the 19th century, in a biography of Italian composer Gioachino Rossini: "He was surrounded to the last by admiring friends; and if it be true that, like so many Italians, he regarded Fridays as an unlucky day and thirteen as an unlucky number, it is remarkable that on Friday 13th of November he passed away." Friday the 13th remains one of the most prevalent historical superstitions that we carry on today (alongside that of kissing under the mistletoe). Many people still choose to stay in bed to reduce the likelihood of accidents, and it's estimated that in the US, as much as $900 million is lost in business each time as a result.
Was the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by the US in WW2 justified?
For years debate has raged over whether the US was right to drop two atomic bombs on Japan during the final weeks of the Second World War. The first bomb, dropped on the city of Hiroshima on 6 August 1945, resulted in a total death toll of around 140,000. The second, which hit Nagasaki on 9 August, killed around 50,000 people. But was the US justified? We put the question to a panel of expert historians...
The atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by the United States in August 1945 brought the Second World War to a sudden and devastating close, and sparked a moral and historical debate that has continued since. Well over 100,000 people, most of them civilians, were killed instantly or in the immediate aftermath, with many more suffering from long-term effects of radiation exposure. The decision by US president Truman to authorise the use of nuclear weapons against Japan was unprecedented. It marked the first (and so far only) time that atomic bombs have been used in warfare. The justification offered at the time was that the bombings would force Japan’s surrender and avoid a prolonged and bloody invasion of the Japanese mainland. Yet the question remains: was the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki justified? Historians continue to debate the military necessity, political motivations and moral implications of the bombings. Was it a strategic decision to end the war quickly and save lives? Or a demonstration of power aimed as much at the Soviet Union as at Japan? Here, a panel of historians offers their perspectives on one of the most controversial chapters of the Second World War, and considers whether the US was right to bomb Japan in 1945. Was the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki justified? “Yes. Truman had little choice” – Antony Beevor Few actions in war are morally justifiable. All a commander or political leader can hope to assess is whether a particular course of action is likely to reduce the loss of life. Faced with the Japanese refusal to surrender, President Truman had little choice. His decision was mainly based on the estimate of half a million Allied casualties likely to be caused by invading the home islands of Japan. There was also the likely death rate from starvation for Allied PoWs and civilians as the war dragged on well into 1946. Read more | The Manhattan Project: your guide to the building of the first atomic bomb What Truman did not know, and which has only been established quite recently, is that the Imperial Japanese Army could never contemplate surrender, having forced all their men to fight to the death since the start of the war. All civilians were to be mobilised and forced to fight with bamboo spears and satchel charges to act as suicide bombers against Allied tanks. Japanese documents apparently indicate their army was prepared to accept up to 28 million civilian deaths. Antony Beevor is a bestselling military historian, specialising in the Second World War. His most recent book is Ardennes 1944: Hitler’s Last Gamble (Viking, 2015) “No. It was immoral, and unnecessary” – Richard Overy The dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima was justified at the time as being moral – in order to bring about a more rapid victory and prevent the deaths of more Americans. However, it was clearly not moral to use this weapon knowing that it would kill civilians and destroy the urban milieu. And it wasn’t necessary either. WW2 | The Big Questions Member exclusive | Historian and broadcaster Laurence Rees explains major moments of the global conflict in this five-part series. Listen to all episodes now Militarily Japan was finished (as the Soviet invasion of Manchuria that August showed). Further blockade and urban destruction would have produced a surrender in August or September at the latest, without the need for the costly anticipated invasion or the atomic bomb. As for the second bomb on Nagasaki, that was just as unnecessary as the first one. It was deemed to be needed, partly because it was a different design, and the military (and many civilian scientists) were keen to see if they both worked the same way. There was, in other words, a cynical scientific imperative at work as well. I should also add that there was a fine line between the atomic bomb and conventional bombing – indeed descriptions of Hamburg or Tokyo after conventional bombing echo the aftermath of Hiroshima. To regard Hiroshima as a moral violation is also to condemn the firebombing campaign, which was deliberately aimed at city centres and completely indiscriminate. Of course it is easy to say that if I had been in Truman’s shoes, I would not have ordered the two bombings. But it is possible to imagine greater restraint. The British and Americans had planned in detail the gas-bombing of a list of 17 major German cities, but in the end did not carry it out because the moral case seemed to depend on Germany using gas first. Restraint was possible, and, at the very end of the war, perhaps more politically acceptable. Richard Overy is a professor of history at the University of Exeter and editor of The Oxford Illustrated History of World War Two (OUP, 2015) More from us HistoryExtra members can explore this topic further with exclusive content from our archives WW2 the big questions: final stages of the conflict What if...The Enigma code had not been cracked by Alan Turing and Bletchley Park? Oppenheimer | Is Christopher Nolan perpetuating a historical myth? The PoWs who survived Nagasaki "We’ve come to think that peace is normal, but that's not the reality": Margaret MacMillan on humanity's compulsion to go to war Not a HistoryExtra member? Explore our latest membership offers “Yes. It was the least bad option” – Robert James Maddox The atomic bombs were horrible, but I agree with US secretary of war Henry L Stimson that using them was the “least abhorrent choice”. A bloody invasion and round-the-clock conventional bombing would have led to a far higher death toll and so the atomic weapons actually saved thousands of American and millions of Japanese lives. The bombs were the best means to bring about unconditional surrender, which is what the US leaders wanted. Only this would enable the Allies to occupy Japan and root out the institutions that led to war in the first place. Timeline | The countdown to the bombing of Hiroshima The experience with Germany after the First World War had persuaded them that a mere armistice would constitute a betrayal of future generations if an even larger war occurred 20 years down the line. It is true that the radiation effects of the atomic bomb provided a grisly dividend, which the US leaders did not anticipate. However, even if they had known, I don’t think it would have changed their decision. Robert James Maddox is author of Hiroshima in History: The Myths of Revisionism (University of Missouri Press, 2007) Video: Could the Nazis have built the first atomic bomb? View Green Video on the source website “No. Japan would have surrendered anyway” – Martin J Sherwin I believe that it was a mistake and a tragedy that the atomic bombs were used. Those bombings had little to do with the Japanese decision to surrender. The evidence has become overwhelming that it was the entry of the Soviet Union on 8 August into the war against Japan that forced surrender but, understandably, this view is very difficult for Americans to accept. Of the Japanese leaders, it was the military ones who held out against the civilian leaders who were closest to the emperor, and who wanted to surrender provided the emperor’s safety would be guaranteed. The military’s argument was that Japan could convince the Soviet Union to mediate on its behalf for better surrender terms than unconditional surrender and therefore should continue the war until that was achieved. Read more | How and when did the Second World War end? Once the USSR entered the war, the Japanese military not only had no arguments for continuation left, but it also feared the Soviet Union would occupy significant parts of northern Japan. Truman could have simply waited for the Soviet Union to enter the war but he did not want the USSR to have a claim to participate in the occupation of Japan. Another option (which could have ended the war before August) was to clarify that the emperor would not be held accountable for the war under the policy of unconditional surrender. US secretary of war Stimson recommended this, but secretary of state James Byrnes, who was much closer to Truman, vetoed it. By dropping the atomic bombs instead, the United States signalled to the world that it considered nuclear weapons to be legitimate weapons of war. Those bombings precipitated the nuclear arms race and they are the source of all nuclear proliferation. The late Martin J Sherwin was co-author of American Prometheus: The Triumph and Tragedy of J Robert Oppenheimer (Atlantic, 2008) Read more | 6 terrible choices people had to make during the Second World War “Yes. It saved millions of lives in Japan and Asia” – Richard Frank Dropping the bombs was morally preferable to any other choices available. One of the biggest problems we have is that we can talk about Dresden and the bombing of Hamburg and we all know what the context is: Nazi Germany and what Nazi Germany did. There’s been a great amnesia in the west with respect to what sort of war Japan conducted across Asia-Pacific. Bear in mind that for every Japanese non-combatant who died during the war, 17 or 18 died across Asia-Pacific. Yet you very seldom find references to this and virtually nothing that vivifies it in the way that the suffering at Hiroshima and Nagasaki has been. Read more | What was the Truman doctrine? With the original invasion strategy negated by radio intelligence revealing the massive Japanese build-up on the planned Kyushu landing areas, Truman’s alternative was a campaign of blockade and bombardment, which would have killed millions of Japanese, mostly non-combatants. For example, in 1946 the food situation would have become catastrophic and there would have been stupendous civilian deaths. It was only because Japan surrendered when it still had a serviceable administrative system – plus American food aid – that saved the country from famine. Read more | Stalin’s famine: a brief history of the Holodomor in Soviet Ukraine Another thing to bear in mind is that while just over 200,000 people were killed in total by the atomic bombs, it is estimated that 300,000–500,000 Japanese people (many of whom were civilians) died or disappeared in Soviet captivity. Had the war continued, that number would have been much higher. Critics talk about changing the demand for unconditional surrender, but the Japanese government had never put forth a set of terms on which they were prepared to end the war prior to Hiroshima. The inner cabinet ruling the country never devised such terms. When foreign minister Shigenori Togo was told that the best terms Japan could obtain were unconditional surrender with the exception of maintaining the imperial system, Togo flatly rejected them in the name of the cabinet. The fact is that there was no historical record over the past 2,600 years of Japan ever surrendering, nor any examples of a Japanese unit surrendering during the war. This was where the great American fear lay. Richard B Frank is a military historian whose books include Downfall: The End of the Imperial Japanese Empire (Random House, 1999) “No. Better options were discarded for political reasons” – Tsuyoshi Hasegawa Once sympathetic to the argument that the atomic bomb was necessary, the more research I do, the more I am convinced it was one of the gravest war crimes the US has ever committed. I’ve been to Japan and discovered what happened on the ground in 1945 and it was really horrifying. The radiation has affected people who survived the blast for many years and still today thousands of people suffer the effects. Read more | “My God, what have we done?” The moral dilemma of Hiroshima There were possible alternatives that might have ended the war. Truman could have invited Stalin to sign the Potsdam declaration [in which the USA, Britain and Nationalist China demanded Japanese surrender in July 1945]. The authors of the draft of the declaration believed that if the Soviets joined the war at this time it might lead to Japanese surrender but Truman consciously avoided that option, because he and some of his advisors were apprehensive about Soviet entry. I don’t agree with revisionists who say Truman used the bomb to intimidate the Soviet Union but I believe he used it to force Japan to surrender before they were able to enter the war. The second option was to alter the demand for unconditional surrender. Some influential advisors within the Truman administration were in favour of allowing the Japanese to keep the emperor system to induce so-called moderates within the Japanese government to work for the termination of the war. However, Truman was mindful of American public opinion, which wanted unconditional surrender as revenge against Pearl Harbor and the Japanese atrocities. Read more | The Nuremberg Trials: the real history behind the post-WW2 tribunal that brought Nazi leaders to justice Bearing in mind those atrocities, it’s clear that Japan doesn’t have a leg to stand on when it comes to immoral acts in the war. However, one atrocity does not make another one right. I believe this was the most righteous war the Americans have ever been involved in but you still can’t justify using any means to win a just war. Tsuyoshi Hasegawa is a professor of history at the University of California at Santa Barbara and the author of Racing the Enemy: Stalin, Truman, and the Surrender of Japan (Harvard University, Press 2005) “Yes. The moral failing was Japan’s” – Michael Kort Truman’s decision to use the atomic bomb was the best choice available under the circumstances and was therefore morally justifiable. It was clear Japan was unwilling to surrender on terms even remotely acceptable to the US and its allies, and the country was preparing a defence far more formidable than the US had anticipated. Read more | Who was Hermann Göring? The truth about Hitler’s drug-fuelled enforcer who met his downfall at Nuremberg The choice was not, as is frequently argued, between using an atomic bomb against Hiroshima and invading Japan. No one on the Allied side could say with confidence what would bring about a Japanese surrender, as Japan’s situation had been hopeless for a long time. It was hoped that the shock provided by the bombs would convince Tokyo to surrender, but how many would be needed was an open question. After Hiroshima, the Japanese government had three days to respond before Nagasaki but did not do so. Hirohito and some of his advisers knew Japan had to surrender but were not in a position to get the government to accept that conclusion. Key military members of the government argued that it was unlikely that the US could have a second bomb and, even if it did, public pressure would prevent its use. The bombing of Nagasaki demolished these arguments and led directly to the imperial conference that produced Japan’s offer to surrender. Read more | The science behind the bombing of Hiroshima The absolutist moral arguments (such as not harming civilians) made against the atomic bombs would have precluded many other actions essential to victory taken by the Allies during the most destructive war in history. There is no doubt that had the bomb been available sooner, it would have been used against Germany. There was, to be sure, a moral failing in August 1945, but it was on the part of the Japanese government when it refused to surrender after its long war of conquest had been lost. Michael Kort is professor of social science at Boston University and author of The Columbia Guide to Hiroshima and the Bomb (Columbia Press, 2007) HistoryExtra readers George Evans-Hulme and Roy Ceustermans debate... George Evans-Hulme: Yes, it was justified. The US was, like the rest of the world, soldiering on towards the end of a dark period of human history that had seen the single most costly conflict (in terms of life) in history, and they chose to adopt a stance that seemed to limit the amount of casualties in the war, by significantly shortening it with the use of atomic weapons. It was certainly a reasonable view for the USA to take, since they had suffered the loss of more than 418,000 lives, both military and civilian. To the top rank of the US military the 135,000 death toll was worth it to prevent the “many thousands of American troops [that] would be killed in invading Japan” – a view attributed to the president himself. This was a grave consequence taken seriously by the US. Ordering the deployment of the atomic bombs was an abhorrent act, but one they were certainly justified in doing. Roy Ceustermans: No, the US wasn’t justified. Even secretary of war Henry Lewis Stimson was not sure the bombs were needed to reduce the need of an invasion: “Japan had no allies; its navy was almost destroyed; its islands were under a naval blockade; and its cities were undergoing concentrated air attacks.” The United States still had many industrial resources to use against Japan, and thus it was essentially defeated. Rear Admiral Tocshitane Takata concurred that B-29s “were the greatest single factor in forcing Japan's surrender”, while Prince Konoye already thought Japan was defeated on 14 February 1945 when he met emperor Hirohito. A combination of thoroughly bombing blockading cities that were economically dependent on foreign sources for food and raw materials, and the threat of Soviet entry in the war, would have been enough. The recommendations for the use of the bomb show that the military was more interested in its devastating effect than in preparing the invasion. Therefore the destruction of hospitals and schools etc was acceptable to them. Read more | 7 of the best WW2 films GEH: The USA was more interested in a quick and easy end to the war than causing untold suffering. They had in their hands a weapon that was capable of bringing the war to a swift end, and so they used it. The atom bombs achieved their desired effects by causing maximum devastation. Just six days after the Nagasaki bombing, the Emperor’s Gyokuon-hōsō speech was broadcast to the nation, detailing the Japanese surrender. The devastation caused by the bombs sped up the Japanese surrender, which was the best solution for all parties. If the atomic bombs had not had the devastating effect they had, they would have been utterly pointless. They replaced thousands of US bombing missions that would have been required to achieve the same effect of the two bombs that, individually, had the explosive power of the payload of 2,000 B-29s. This freed up resources that could be utilised for the war effort elsewhere. RC: After the bloody battles of Iwo Jima and Okinawa, the death toll on both sides was high, and the countries’ negative view of one other became almost unbridgeable, says J Samuel Walker in Prompt and Utter Destruction: Truman and The Use of Atomic Bombs Against Japan. Therefore, the US created unconditional terms of surrender, knowingly going against the Japanese ethic of honour and against the institute of the emperor, whom most Americans probably wanted dead. Consequently, the use of the atomic bomb became a way to avenge America's fallen soldiers while also keeping the USSR in check in Europe. The Japanese civilian casualties did not matter in this strategy. Also, it did not prevent the Cold War, as the USSR was just a few years behind on a-bomb research. Read more | Before the atomic bombs, the USA hit Japan with one of the most overlooked (but deadly) campaigns in WW2 At the time, revenge, geopolitics and an expensive project that could not be allowed to simply rust away, meant the atomic bomb had to be hastily deployed “in the field” in order to see its power and aftermath – though little was known about radiation and its effects on humans. GEH: Admittedly, the US did use the atom bomb to keep the USSR in line, and for that it served its purpose. It may not have stopped the Soviets developing their own nuclear device, but that’s not what it was intended for. It was used as a deterrent to keep the (sometimes uneasy) peace between the US and the USSR, and it achieved that. There are no cases of a direct, all-out war between the US and the Soviets that can be attributed to the potentially devastating effects of atomic weaponry. The atomic bombs certainly established US dominance immediately after the Second World War – the destructive power it possessed meant that it remained uncontested as the world’s greatest power until the Soviets developed their own weapon, four years after the deployment at Nagasaki. It is certainly true that Stalin and the Soviets tried to test US dominance, but even into the 1960s the US generally came out on top. RC: The price to keep the USSR in check was steep: the use of a weapon of mass destruction that caused around 200,000 deaths (most of them civilians) and massive suffering through radiation. However, it did not stop the USSR from creating the same weapon within four years. It might be argued that, following the explosions, Japan virtually disappeared from the world stage while the USSR viewed the bombing as an incentive to acquire the same weaponry in order to retaliate in equal force if the atomic bomb was ever used again. Considering the tension between the two countries, a similar attack with tens of thousands of civilian casualties would have created a nuclear apocalypse. If the US had organised a demonstration, as they had briefly considered, the USSR would still have responded in the same manner, while Japan – which had made clear overtures for a (un)conditional surrender – could have been spared. Furthermore, by postponing the use of the bomb, scientists would have had time to understand the test results, meaning further anguish, like the Bikini Atoll [a huge US hydrogen bomb test in 1954 that had major consequences for the geology and natural environment, and on the health of those who were exposed to radiation] could have been avoided. GEH: The large civilian death toll that resulted from the bombings can be seen as a small price to pay by the United States in return for their assertion of dominance on the world stage. The USSR’s development of an atomic weapon had been underway since 1943, and so their quest for nuclear devices cannot be solely attributed to the events of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It should also be considered that the Soviets’ rapid progress in creating an atom bomb was not exclusively down to their desire to compete with the United States, but from spies passing them US secrets. Postponing the use of the atom bomb would only have prolonged the war and potentially created an even worse fate for the people of Japan, with an estimated five to 10 million Japanese fatalities – a number higher than some estimates for the entire Soviet military in the Second World War. Ultimately, the atomic bombs did what they were designed to do. They created such a high level of devastation that the Japanese felt they had no option but to surrender unconditionally to the United States, hence resulting in US victory and the end of the Second World War. RC: Of course civilian casualties of another nation would have been acceptable to the USA. Japan had made clear overtures to peace, but cultural differences made this nearly impossible (the shame of unconditional surrender goes against their code of honour). The determination to use an expensive bomb instead of letting it rust away; the desire to find out how devastating it was and the opportunity to use the bomb as a strong showcase of US supremacy, made Japan the ideal target. Obviously, the USSR would eventually succeed in creating the a-bomb. Therefore, making Hiroshima & Nagasaki the example of the tremendous power of the bombs would make it clear to the USSR that they too needed such weapons to defend themselves. Moreover, other countries claimed the right of nuclear weapons to defend their citizens. Consequently, the tragic bombings became the example of an arm’s race instead of peace. Furthermore, since Japan was already on the brink of collapse the bombing was unnecessary, and peace talks would have taken place within a decent time frame (even after the cancelled Hawaii summit). The millions of deaths calculated by Operation Downfall [the codename for the Allied plan for the invasion of Japan near the end of the Second World War, which was abandoned when Japan surrendered following the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki] actually show that only desperation and honour stood between Japan and unconditional surrender. George Evans-Hulme has a passion for military and political history, and enjoys visiting historical sites across the UK. Roy Ceustermans has a master's degree in the history of the Catholic Church, an advanced master's degree on the historical expansion, exchange and globalisation of the world, and a master’s degree in management.
Millions of people took to the streets of Britain on 8 May 1945 to celebrate VE Day – the day when the German armed forces signed an unconditional surrender, and the Second World War in Europe finally came to an end. Hanging bunting, waving flags, drinking and dancing, the streets were crammed with joyous revellers...
At 2.41am on 7 May 1945, at a schoolhouse near Reims in northern France, General Alfred Jodl, the German chief of staff, signed the unconditional surrender of all German land, sea and air forces wherever they might be fighting. General Eisenhower, Supreme Commander of the Allied Forces, rang General Sir ‘Pug’ Ismay, Churchill’s chief of staff. “The war is over,” he said. “But no official announcement could be made” said Juliet Gardiner, writing for BBC History Magazine in 2005. “Stalin insisted that victory should not be proclaimed until German troops on the eastern front had surrendered to the Soviet general Zukhov in Berlin and the long-awaited news could be proclaimed simultaneously in London, Moscow and Washington.” Yet rumours that the war had finally ended soon began to filter through to the British public. “The newspapers are full of rumours of surrender… feeling almost excited… everyone is speculating,” wrote Lyn Murphy, who worked for the director of an electrical manufacturer engaged in war production, in her diary for 7 May 1945. “They shouldn’t keep people hanging about waiting like this. The government needn’t be afraid of people going mad, everybody’s very sober about it,” complained a middle-aged man to a member of Mass-Observation, the organisation that compiled reports on British wartime attitudes and morale, which was out in force now that victory was in the air. On the afternoon of 8 May 1945, the British prime minister Winston Churchill made the radio announcement that the world had long been waiting for. He announced that hostilities with Germany would cease at one minute past midnight, and that “our dear Channel Islands”, the only part of British territory to have been occupied, “are to be freed today”. After nearly six long years, the war in Europe was finally over. <img src="https://images.immediate.co.uk/production/volatile/sites/7/2020/05/GettyImages-3432929-4d9bca8-scaled-e1746607596456.jpg" width="619" height="413" alt="Prime Minister Winston Churchill makes his VE Day broadcast to the world, 8 May 1945. (Photo by Keystone/Getty Images)" title="Prime Minister Winston Churchill makes his VE Day broadcast to the world, 8 May 1945. (Photo by Keystone/Getty Images)" /> Time to party The celebrations began almost immediately. But there were no official plans for VE Day – notice of the public holiday had been so short that most weren’t sure how to celebrate. Gardiner, who later interviewed people who experienced VE Day firsthand, said: “A London window cleaner probably spoke for many when he declared ‘the holiday is the main issue… very few have any definite plans, and these almost exclusively consist of getting drunk.’” Most people had expected the church bells to be rung: “I thought they’d be clanging all day long,” reported a Surrey woman, “but there was no signal. Just hanging around… No All Clears, no bells. Nothing to start people off.” The weather looked set to be fair – though the papers forecast possible rain later. But even that was a novelty, said Gardiner. Throughout the war it had been forbidden to publish the weather forecast in the newspapers or broadcast it on the wireless, for fear of giving the Germans information that might be useful in planning bombing raids. Some people went to church to give thanks for the peace at hastily arranged services, while others strolled around their local streets admiring the flags and streamers that had been hung out. Children set to work making Union Jack flags with cardboard and crayons. Although VE Day was strictly speaking a continental European event, it was celebrated all over the world. In London, more than a million people took to the streets and huge crowds gathered outside Buckingham Palace to see Churchill standing on the balcony alongside King George VI. The king's daughters, Princess Elizabeth – the future Queen Elizabeth II (pictured far left) – and Princess Margaret, appeared alongside them. In Paris and New York, similar crowds gathered along the Champs Elysée and in Times Square. Michael Mason, 13, who had been evacuated from his home in central London to a village in Hertfordshire in 1939 and was still there on VE Day, said: “I caught the early bus… to London. I wanted to spend the day with my mum and dad. The scenes in the capital were incredible. It was one huge celebration. A tremendous wave of pent-up feelings had broken loose. The streets were crammed with joyful revellers.” The partying went on into the night: “Crowds surged back to Buckingham Palace to call for the king and queen again, lines of conga dancers wove along Piccadilly, revellers jumped into the fountains in Trafalgar Square,” wrote Gardiner. “The police were tolerant, instructed to intervene only when there was danger to life or limb, to let a war weary people go a little wild just for one night. In fact, there was remarkably little trouble or drunken behaviour – partly because most pubs had already run dry by eight o’clock.” Majorie Cantwell, who was nine in 1945 and living in Ealing, west London, thought that “VE Day was the best day of my life. All morning we had been collecting things for the bonfire (including an old piano full of woodworm!)… when darkness finally fell we lit our bonfire and placed a Hitler “guy” on the top. It was in the middle of the road so we were all able to dance around it. “Later two radios were placed side by side in the window of a nearby house and BBC dance music was relayed into the street. All the grown-ups danced and sang until they were exhausted. When the dance music went off the air, my dad entertained everyone with his banjo and people sang and danced some more. We all went to bed that night tired and happy and I felt that nothing could ever harm us again.” Look back at the 8 May 1945 celebrations in pictures… <img src="https://images.immediate.co.uk/production/volatile/sites/7/2020/05/GettyImages-3276265-040cd5d-scaled-e1746607806479.jpg" width="620" height="413" alt="Canadian troops entertain the crowds in Leicester Square while waiting for the broadcast of the King's VE Day speech, 8 May 1945. (Photo by Topical Press Agency/Getty Images)" title="Canadian troops entertain the crowds in Leicester Square while waiting for the broadcast of the King's VE Day speech, 8 May 1945. (Photo by Topical Press Agency/Getty Images)" /> <img src="https://images.immediate.co.uk/production/volatile/sites/7/2020/05/GettyImages-3312682-7950150-e1746608155941.jpg" width="620" height="413" alt="The residents of Tilloch Street, Islington, London, who organised a tea party in the street for their children at Whitsun. (Photo by Central Press/Getty Images)" title="The residents of Tilloch Street, Islington, London, who organised a tea party in the street for their children at Whitsun. (Photo by Central Press/Getty Images)" />
Historical baby names: a guide to baby name trends from the Anglo-Saxons to today
From biblical names like Noah to those inspired by flowers or cities, personal names in Britain have changed massively over the centuries, reflecting social, economic and cultural shifts. Writer Neil Burdess charts the history of names from the time of the Anglo-Saxons to the present day…
Anglo-Saxon and Old English names Considering that the Anglo-Saxon period ended nearly 1,000 years ago, there are a surprising number of Old English names still in use. Some have been modernised – for example, Ælfræd became Alfred – but the original names are still recognisable. Other Anglo-Saxon male names include Alwin, Chad, Cuthbert, Edgar, Edmund, Edward, Godwin, Harold and Wilfred. Interestingly, Edward, Alfred and Wilfred are still popular. There aren’t as many recognisable female names, but they include Audrey, Edith, Ethel, Hilda and Mildred. Edith remains a popular name today. Norman names The arrival of the Norman invaders in 1066 had a huge impact on personal names (and everything else). Just before the Norman Conquest, 85 per cent of men’s names were Old English, the favourites being Godwin and Alwin. But 150 years later, only five per cent of names were Old English. By then, the favourite male names were from Normandy, including Albert, Gerald, Henry, Hugh, Leonard, Ralph, Raymond, Richard, Robert, Roger, Walter and William. William, Henry, Albert, Robert and Ralph are all still popular. Women’s names included Matilda, Adelaide, Adela, Gertrude, Ida, Rosalind and Rosamund, with Matilda particularly still enjoying popularity. Read more | When did our kings and queens start using surnames? The reasons for these changes from Anglo-Saxon to Norman names are not hard to find. First, King William replaced virtually all the Anglo-Saxon aristocracy with Norman lords. The remaining prominent Anglo-Saxons – those who had not fled or been sold into slavery overseas – attempted to show loyalty to the new king by giving Norman names to their children. Eventually, even the landless peasants copied the social elite and adopted Norman names. A rising trend for saints' names The influence of the Roman Catholic Church grew considerably in the 12th and 13th centuries, resulting in the greatly increased use of the names of saints. These included saints who appear in the Bible (eg Mary, Elizabeth), and saints who were canonised by the Roman Catholic Church (eg Agnes, Margaret). Once established, religious names quickly became popular for both girls and boys. By the mid-1500s, religious names made up about half of all boys’ names, with John and Thomas being the most popular. Among girls the influence of the Catholic Church was even greater, with more than eight out of 10 baptisms using religious names. However, names from the Old Testament were rarely used. In the 1530s, Henry VIII separated church affairs in England from the Roman Catholic Church by establishing the Church of England. Not surprisingly, those names most closely associated with Catholicism quickly fell out of favour. These included all the saints who don’t appear in the Bible but who had been canonised by the Roman Catholic Church, including Barbara, Margaret, Martin and Valentine. In fact, even New Testament names became much less popular because of their association with the Catholic Church. Notably, John and Thomas continue to be popular today. Biblical and religious names The establishment of the Church of England coincided with the publication in 1535 of the first modern English translation of both the Old Testament and New Testament of the Bible. The Protestant reform movement stressed the central importance of the Bible, and the new English translations meant that many more people could read the Bible themselves. In turn, it also meant that they had access to the large stock of names from the Old Testament – from Aaron to Zechariah, and Abigail to Zipporah. These names had the added attraction that they were much less associated with Catholicism than many New Testament names. As a result, Old Testament names became much more common during the late-16th century and 17th century, especially among girls. But Old Testament boys’ names struggled to make any dent in the popularity of more traditional names, with the top five places monopolised by John, Thomas, William, Richard and Robert. Although not quite as popular today, nevertheless two of these names, William and Thomas, are still often ranked in the top boys’ names – though they are also nowadays often accompanied by popular Old Testament names: Jacob, Noah, Joshua and Isaac. A second large group of given names include those based on traditional names. These include ‘short forms’ or ‘pet names’, such as Tom for Thomas, Dick for Richard and Harry for Henry. Some short forms have been around almost as long as the full names. For example, the native Anglo-Saxons had trouble getting their tongues around the Norman pronunciation of Richard, and so the name Dick was born. Often, the original aim of the short form was to give people more scope to identify exactly whom they were talking about at a time when the number of given names was limited and the use of family names was not in general use. As a result, many traditional names have several long-established short forms. For example, as well as Dick, long-established short forms of Richard include Dicky, Rick, Ricky, Rich and Richie. Today, the pet names Jack, Harry, Alfie, Freddie and Archie are all popular boys’ names; and Evie (the pet form of Eve or Evelyn) is a popular girls’ name. Great reputations Member exclusive | In our podcast series, expert historians discuss the contested reputations of key historical figures, charting the lives and afterlives of Cleopatra, Napoleon Bonaparte, Emmeline Pankhurst and more… Listen to all episodes now The use of family names In the Middle Ages, women often had what we now regard as men’s names, in part because of the relatively small number of female saints. So, in the mid-1500s Richard was in the top 50 baptismal names for both boys and girls. Other names commonly used for both boys and girls included Philip, Nicholas, Alexander, James, Gilbert, Aubrey, Reynold, Basil, Eustace, Giles, Edmund and Simon. However, when the Church authorities recorded names they did so in Latin and, following the rules of Latin grammar, wrote the name with a feminine ending. So, Philip became Philippa, Nicholas became Nicholaa, and Alexander became Alexandra. However, it wasn’t until much later that these written forms became regular girls’ names. Finally, there are now hundreds of given names that originally were family names – from Allan to Zane – with the majority traditionally used as boys’ names. The practice began around the time of William Shakespeare in the late 1500s among peers of the realm. In most cases, the child’s mother was an heiress to her father’s estate, and the use of her family name as the child’s given name helped ensure that the inheritance was not lost. Read more | Is it true that Bluetooth was named after Viking king Harald Bluetooth? Like many social customs, it was not long before using family names as given names was taken up more widely: “Surnames of honourable and worshipfull families are given now to mean [ie poor] men’s children for Christian names” is how William Camden bluntly described it in 1605. For example, the given name Percy was taken from the Percy family, whose sons have been earls of Northumberland since the 14th century. Today, transferred surnames are popular boys’ given names, including Logan, Mason, Harrison, Finlay, Jenson and Harvey. Religion and baby names In the 16th century, Puritans wanted names that would distinguish their children from what they saw as the godless masses, and would remind their children of their duty to God. So, they began to coin virtue names such as Grace, Faith, Hope, Charity, Patience, Mercy and Joy. Some parents went further still and gave their children slogan names, such as John Barebone who named his two sons Fear-God and Praise-God because the Church of England Prayer Book directed married couples to bring up their children “in the fear… and praise of God”. Not surprisingly, the fashion for slogan names didn’t last long, but a few virtue names are still quite popular for girls, such as Grace and Faith. Generally, however, until the 19th century, naming practices continued as they had done for hundreds of years, with the same names being handed down from generation to generation. In the late 1700s, the names William, John and Thomas accounted for over half of all male baptisms; and Elizabeth, Mary and Anne accounted for over half of all female baptisms. However, in the 19th century, name-giving became much more fluid, with certain names enjoying popularity for only a limited time. Harvard sociologist Stanley Lieberson believes that the explanation for this change lies in the Industrial Revolution. The revolution brought about a massive increase in the proportion of the population living in cities as people in the countryside flocked to them for work. This weakened the traditional influence of the extended family, and therefore the position of honour traditionally held by older people. As a result, given names associated with the elderly became less attractive to new parents. The Industrial Revolution also sped up the spread of literacy, and through their reading people came across a much wider variety of names – Charles Dickens alone created 1,000 named characters. Victorian baby names So, Victorian parents began to choose new names for their children. For example, botanical names became very popular for girls, such as Daisy, Hazel, Holly, Ivy, Lily, Marigold, Poppy, Rose – and a bunch of others (pardon the pun). As with many fashions, the very popularity of botanical names eventually sowed the seeds of their downfall. However, recently the popularity of several botanical names has soared, as they have been re-discovered by a new generation of parents who see the names as fresh, modern and fashionable. In 2017, there were no fewer than 12 botanical names in the current top 100 girls’ names, with Poppy, Lily and Daisy all in the top 20. Also in the 1800s, parents began to give their children names that commemorated a significant place. For example, Florence Nightingale (1820–1910) was named after the city of her birth, and Rudyard Kipling (1865–1936) was named after Rudyard Lake where his parents went courting. Charles Dickens’ Bleak House, published in the 1850s, includes Mr and Mrs Bagnet, whose children were named Quebec, Malta and Woolwich, from the military bases where Mr Bagnet had worked. These days, baby name books often include a “place name” list. But because of the huge range of possibilities, individual geographical names rarely become very popular. However, one clear exception today is Isla, which comes from the Scottish island of Islay. It wasn’t in the top 100 a decade ago, but in 2017 was the fourth most popular girls’ name. The historical desire to be unique Undoubtedly a major inspiration for given names in the past few decades is the desire by many parents to make their children stand out in a crowd by giving them an unusual, rare or even unique name. This is part of a much larger process of individualisation. That is, over the past half-century the development of a consumer culture has led to an ever-increasing choice of goods and services. The message from advertisers is that we choose what sort of person we want to be by careful selection of what’s on offer. It’s no coincidence, then, that the increase in the number of registered names for babies matches the increase in the number of registered names for biscuits and breakfast cereals. In Britain in 2015, of the 60,000 different registered names, 50,000 were given to only one or two children. But it’s not easy coming up with a ‘new’ name – ask the two dozen British parents who in the past decade named their daughter Unique… only to find that she wasn’t unique after all. As far back as 1281 the Archbishop of Canterbury warned priests against “frivolous” names, especially when baptising girls. You may still see this pattern when you compare lists of top 10 names in the 21st century versus a century ago. Among boys, for example, the traditional names William, Thomas and George regularly appear in both lists. And there were also two pet names in 2017's list that appeared in traditional form in the top 10 names a century ago: Charlie and Charles; and Jack and John (the most popular name 100 years ago). In other words, half of today’s most popular boys’ names were also popular a century ago. In contrast, none of 2017's top 10 girls’ names were as popular a century ago. In fact, only three of them were in even the top 100 girls’ names. Baby names of the future As the previous paragraph suggests, boys’ names are easier to predict, with traditional names continuing their dominance. After decades in the top 10 (much of the time at number one) the name John has suffered a half-century of decline, so that as of 2017 it was not even in the top 100. Yet it’s possible that it could start rising once again. Rather less mainstream are the names Wilfred and Benedict, both of which seem to be popular among parents who announce the birth of their children in The Times. The history of name-giving is full of examples of names that have trickled down from the social elite to the general public, and these two long-established names are likely to become more generally popular. Predicting popular girls’ names is much less certain. Using the trickle-down idea, it’s possible that Arabella and Elodie will continue to rise. Time will tell… Neil Burdess is the author of Hello, My Name Is… published by Sandstone Press This article was first published by HistoryExtra in October 2017
D-Day beaches map: where were the D-Day landings?
How many troops were involved in D-Day? Which country suffered more casualties, Britain or America? And why was Normandy chosen as the location? Our D-Day infographics explain the numbers…
The invasion of Nazi-occupied France was codenamed Operation Overlord and took place on Tuesday 6 June 1944, having been delayed by 24 hours because of poor weather. Allied forces launched a combined naval, air and land assault in what was the largest seaborne invasion in history. D-Day marked the beginning of the campaign to liberate north-west Europe from German occupation. What were the five D-Day beaches? American, British, and Canadian troops landed on five different beaches across the Normandy coastline. The five D-Day beaches were Utah, Omaha, Gold Beach, Juno, and Sword. The Americans landed at Utah at the base of the Cotentin Peninsular and at Omaha at the western end of the northern Normandy coast; the British were to land at Gold Beach, east of Omaha; then the Canadians at Juno; and the British again at Sword, the easternmost invasion beach. D-Day: Land, Air and Sea | A HistoryExtra podcast series Member exclusive | Discover the story of 6 June 1944 from the perspectives of the soldiers, sailors and airborne troops who served. Featuring interviews with WW2 experts Saul David, Nick Hewitt and Giles Milton, as well as gripping eyewitness testimonies. Listen to all episodes now Why were the Normandy beaches chosen for the D-Day landings? The initial decision to land in Normandy was made by the chief of staff to the supreme allied commander (COSSAC) in 1943, Lieutenant-General Frederick Morgan. His team ruled out the Pas-de-Calais region and saw a landing between the Cotentin peninsula and near to Caen as being the most suitable, says military historian Paul Reed. Brittany, Dieppe and Pas de Calais were all considered as alternative landing locations, but none were as attractive as Normandy. At this stage in the war, due to lack of men and equipment, Morgan recommended landing on three beaches along the Normandy coastline, but this was later expanded to five. The work of the French Resistance had indicated that there were fewer defences in Normandy than in the Pas-de-Calais, with many bunkers containing antiquated firepower from the First World War. Indeed, some of the bunker complexes were only partially completed. The mapping had also demonstrated good roads to get landing troops off the beach area and inland, and to take them beyond on the long road to liberation, says Reed. Read more | Churchill and D-Day: did the prime minister oppose the Normandy landings? Where did British troops depart from? What happened in the days and weeks after D-Day? Despite fierce German resistance, the Allies secured footholds at all five beaches within 48 hours of D-Day, and by 12 June had succeeded in linking all of the beachheads into one continuous front. In the weeks the followed, the Allies made gradual progress into German-occupied France, liberating Paris on 25 August 1944. Read more | From the USA's 'good war' to Britain's 'great hurrah': how is D-Day remembered around the world? D-Day and the Normandy Campaign | A short course from HistoryExtra Academy Member exclusive | In this four-week course, you’ll discover everything you need to know about the Normandy landings, guided by historian, author and broadcaster Taylor Downing. Explore the course now To read more about the successes and failures of D-Day, visit our D-Day hub
Charles and Diana: a history of their marriage
Their 15-year marriage began with a fairy tale wedding and saw the birth of two princes, but ended in a public and acrimonious divorce involving infidelity that threatened to rock the monarchy. But what was the real nature of Prince Charles and Diana’s relationship: how did they meet, when did cracks first appear, were they in love, and was Diana really the wronged party? We asked royal biographer Penny Junor to tell us the real story of Charles and Diana…
Who was Diana, Princess of Wales? Maiden name: Diana Frances Spencer Born: 1 July 1961 at Park House, the home that her parents rented on Queen Elizabeth II’s estate at Sandringham Died: 31 August 1997, in a car accident in Paris (aged 36) Married to: Prince Charles (m. 1981–96) Height: 1.78 m Children: Prince William (born 1982) and Prince Harry (born 1984) Grandchildren: Prince George (born 2013); Princess Charlotte (born 2015); Prince Louis (born 2018); Archie Mountbatten-Windsor (born 2019) Parents: John Spencer, 8th Earl Spencer & Frances Roche Siblings: Lady Sarah McCorquodale (1955–present); Jane Fellowes, Baroness Fellowes (1957–present); John Spencer, died within 10 hours of his birth on 12 January 1960; Charles Spencer, 9th Earl Spencer (1964–present) Educated: Silfield Private School in Gayton, Norfolk; Riddlesworth Hall School near Thetford; West Heath Girls’ School in Sevenoaks, Kent; Institut Alpin Videmanette in Rougemont, Switzerland View Green Video on the source website When did Diana Spencer meet Prince Charles? It was in the summer of 1980, at a house party hosted by Diana’s friend Philip de Pass in New Grove, near Petworth, that Prince Charles first saw Diana Spencer as a potential girlfriend. Sitting next to each other on a bale of hay at a post-polo barbecue, an 19-year-old Diana expressed her sympathy for Charles over the loss of his beloved great-uncle, Lord Mountbatten, who had been murdered by the IRA a year earlier. “My heart bled for you when I watched the funeral; I thought, ‘It’s wrong, you’re lonely – you should be with somebody to look after you’,” said Diana. This, says Penny Junor, was exactly what Charles needed to hear. “Mountbatten was a very important figure in Charles’s life and he was in a fragile state at that point,” says Junor. “Diana really touched a nerve in Charles, she said just the right thing to him, at the right moment, and he was moved by her.” This encounter was not, however, the first time Charles and Diana had met. The pair had been introduced two years earlier, in 1977 – Charles thought her “jolly” when he visited Althorp, the Spencer estate, when he was dating Diana’s older sister, Lady Sarah (a relationship that ended in early 1978). Diana had also attended Charles’s 30th birthday party along with her sister at Buckingham Palace in November 1978, and in January 1979 Diana again met Charles when she and Sarah were guests of Queen Elizabeth II at a weekend shooting party at Sandringham. After that weekend, Charles occasionally invited Diana to the ballet as part of a group or to dinner with friends. The relationship was, at this stage, purely platonic – Diana was fun to have around. It was not until their heart-to-heart about Lord Mountbatten in 1980 that Charles first saw Diana as girlfriend material. Keen to spend more time with Diana, Charles promptly invited her to Balmoral to join him and a group of friends staying there for a summer holiday. Diana enchanted and delighted. “She seemed to be the perfect girl,” says Junor. “She was funny, she was fun, everybody seemed to love her – she made everyone laugh and she seemed to adore Charles. “She was, on paper, absolutely perfect as a bride for him. At the time it was thought Charles’s bride must be a virgin, an aristocrat and a member of the Church of England. Now, we should remember that by the 1980s, after the 1960s sexual revolution and the introduction of the contraceptive pill, there were very few aristocratic virgins around, and as time went by – Charles was by this point in his 30s – they were getting fewer and fewer. “So, here was this girl who appeared to be absolutely lovely; perfect marriage material. And she appeared to be very uncomplicated. She was fresh and naïve and full of the joys of life. Or so it seemed.” But, says Junor, pressure began to mount on Charles and Diana almost immediately. “Ever since Charles was around the age of 18 the press had been looking at every girlfriend and asking, ‘could this be our next queen?’. They delved into the background of all of these women, which put an awful lot of them off. It was very difficult for Charles to meet and get to know somebody. And this is exactly what happened with Diana: she met Charles and almost immediately the press discovered that he was seeing her. The paparazzi camped outside the door to her flat in London; everywhere she went she was photographed and harassed. It was impossible for the two of them to get to know one another in any sort of ‘normal’ way.” Charles was also under pressure from his father, Prince Philip, to stop ‘playing the field’ and get married. It was time for Charles, who was now in his 30s, to settle down and find a wife, his father thought. “The bottom line being, of course, that every heir requires an heir of his own in order to keep the monarchy going,” says Junor. Did Prince Philip tell Charles to marry Diana? The catalyst came in the form of a memo sent by Prince Philip to his son in early 1981 urging him to make up his mind. You either marry this girl or you let her go, he wrote. But, says Junor, this memo was fatefully misinterpreted by Charles. “The royal family communicates with one another in very strange ways,” she said. “Rather than just picking up the phone or having a chat face-to-face, it was all done through memos. Charles misread his father’s memo: he thought he was being told that he must marry Diana – and so he asked her to marry him.” When did Prince Charles and Diana Spencer get engaged? Charles proposed to Diana on 6 February 1981 at Windsor Castle. But it was a tragic mismatch, says Junor. Charles and Diana had, at this point, barely spent any time together – Diana later claimed that she and Charles had met only 13 times before they became engaged. “And most of that time they'd not spent alone together,” Junor adds. “So they really didn't know one another at all.” Read more | How accurate is The Crown’s portrayal of Charles and Diana’s engagement? Diana’s mental health Diana soon began to struggle in her new role. Aged just 19 and having been living happily in a flatshare in London with a group of girl friends, Diana was taken away from everything she knew and moved into a suite of rooms at Buckingham Palace. “It was awful for her, and lonely,” says Junor. “As soon as she moved into Buckingham Palace she appeared to be a very different girl from the girl she had been at Balmoral – she suddenly became very weepy and jealous of anywhere Charles went and anyone he saw. Her moods went up and down; shooting to stardom in a very short space of time was too much for her. “Meanwhile Charles, who was on a perpetual rollercoaster of engagements that he couldn’t get off, didn't quite know how to cope with this; he didn't know what was going on.” Diana was struggling with her mental health and with the eating disorder bulimia, says Junor. “She’d had a very traumatic childhood; she was a very damaged little girl who had grown into a very damaged young woman,” says the royal biographer. Diana’s parents had endured an unhappy marriage and separated when she was just six years old. Diana Spencer's early life A year-and-a-half before Diana was born, her mother, Frances Ruth Roche, who was already the mother of two girls, Diana’s elder sisters, had given birth to a baby boy who died when he was just 10 hours old. Diana was born 18 months later, in July 1961, followed by a much-wanted male heir: Diana’s younger brother, Charles. When Charles was around the age of two or three, Diana’s mother met Peter Shand Kydd, an heir to the wallpaper fortune built by his father, Norman Shand Kydd. The pair began an affair and later decided to become a couple. “Frances thought she could finally be happy, and she had every intention of taking her children with her,” says Junor. But, tragically, Frances lost custody of Diana and her three siblings following an intervention by her mother, Ruth Roche, Baroness Fermoy, a lady-in-waiting to the Queen Mother. “Appalled that her daughter had run off with a ‘man in trade’, Baroness Fermoy gave evidence in the custody proceedings against her own daughter,” says Junor. “She told the court Frances was a bad mother, and as a result, custody of all four children went to Diana’s father. This is, I believe, why Diana’s mother later became a reclusive and very sad woman. It was because she had lost her children.” Diana, aged just seven and completely unaware of the custody proceedings, was left feeling abandoned and as though her mother did not love her enough to take her with her. “And then she worked out that actually she was a bit of a nuisance,” says Junor. “Her mother and father had wanted a boy, and that boy had died. Diana later told journalist Andrew Morton [who wrote the authorised 1992 biography Diana: Her True Story], her parents had tried for another boy but ended up with Diana. “Diana felt very unloved and unwanted, and she took those feelings into her adult life – she was always desperate to be loved but expected people to abandon her.” Diana’s bulimia Diana struggled with bulimia for many years before seeking professional help. It’s difficult to know when exactly it started, but it was “in full swing” by the time of their honeymoon, says Junor. She may initially have been treated for anorexia. “I think that the eating disorder was a manifestation of a much greater disorder,” says Junor. “Her mental health was poor; she had struggled mentally from childhood. “Bulimia and anorexia are very destructive conditions; they’re very hard to live with,” says Junor. Revelations of Diana’s bulimia were first published in Andrew Morton’s 1992 authorised biography, Diana: Her True Story. She later spoke about her struggle with the condition in her famous 1995 Panorama interview with Martin Bashir. [In 2021, an independent inquiry found that Bashir had used deception to secure the interview] “I think she felt that nobody could help her,” says Junor. She saw various conventional therapists but also turned to a number of alternative, complementary therapists including astrologers and crystal healers.” Wwhere and when did Charles and Diana and get married? The wedding of Charles and Diana married at St Paul’s Cathedral on 29 July 1981 in what has been described as the wedding of the century. “I think Charles and Diana both knew they were making a mistake when they walked down the aisle,” says Junor. “But it would have taken somebody very brave to cancel at that point. Charles had always said that marriage for him must be for life and it was therefore very important that he marry the right girl – ‘If I’m deciding [on] whom I want to live with for 50 years – well, that’s the last decision on which I [would] want my head to be ruled by my heart.’ “So although I don’t think he was actually in love with Diana, I think he thought he could grow to love her. Fundamentally I think he had every intention of making his marriage work. “A lot of people believe that Charles used Diana; that he never loved her and he never had any intention of honouring his marriage vows. They think he just needed his heir and his ‘spare’ and that once that was achieved, he went off with the woman he’d always loved, Camilla. That is very much the story that a lot of people like to believe. “Having spoken to a great many people who were around at the time, I happen to believe that story is completely wrong. I have always felt that it was just a very tragic mismatch; these two people were just completely wrong for one another. I really do not think that Charles used Diana or intended to use Diana, but once he was inside that marriage life was utterly unbearable for both of them.” Read more | Prince Charles and Camilla: a history of their romance Was Charles still seeing Camilla when he married Diana? Charles’s relationship with Camilla had ended when she married Andrew Parker Bowles in the summer of 1973. Camilla settled into her new life as a wife and mother and her friendship with Charles remained platonic in the years that followed. But the pair restarted their affair shortly after the birth of Camilla’s second child, Laura, in early 1978, and in 1979 Charles turned to Camilla for consolation for his grief following the death of Lord Mountbatten. Camilla was “his best friend, his soul mate, and, and after the death of his great-uncle, lover,” writes Marlene Koenig in this article for HistoryExtra. This second affair lasted until Charles’s engagement to Diana in 1981. “Camilla’s husband, unfortunately, was very unfaithful to her, so she was very lonesome in her marriage,” says Junor. “And Charles made her feel good. Who can blame her for enjoying that relationship while Charles was single? But she knew that once Charles became married, the physical side of their relationship would end. She was under no illusion that it would carry on. And when Camilla realised that Diana was jealous of her, she stepped right back.” Tensions were made worse by the fact that Charles had failed to tell Diana about his history with Camilla when they first began dating, says Junor. Early on in his relationship with Diana, they even went to stay with the Parker Bowles’s, but Charles did not disclose the fact Camilla was his ex-girlfriend. Instead, Diana found out on the grapevine “through Buckingham Palace gossip,” says Junor. “As a 19-year-old, Diana would have been hugely upset by that, and very jealous,” she adds. “She probably felt like a bit of a fool”. Read more | Everything you need to know about Camilla, the Duchess of Cornwall Diana and The G&F bracelet The last time Charles and Camilla saw one another before he married Diana was just a few days before the wedding. They had one final lunch together, during which Charles gifted Camilla a bracelet inscribed with the letters ‘G’ and ‘F’, which is thought to have stood for ‘Gladys’ and ‘Fred’ – their nicknames for one another. Shockingly, Diana had discovered the bracelet just two weeks previously, in the office she shared with Charles’s right-hand-man, Michael Colborne. Prince Charles had asked Colborne to buy jewellery as presents for a number of women with whom he had been close during his bachelor years, as a way of thanking them for their companionship. “All the jewellery had been delivered to the office that Diana was sharing with Colborne and put on his desk,” Junor explains. “Colborne was called away to a meeting down the corridor. He left the jewellery on his desk and when he came back he met Diana storming out of the office. He quickly realised she had unpacked the boxes, discovered the bracelet and got into a jealous rage.” Camilla attended Charles and Diana’s wedding but the pair did not then see one another or communicate for nearly five years – apart from when Charles notified her of the birth of his first son, William. Princess Diana's sons: the births of William and Harry In June 1982, less than a year after Diana and Charles married, their first son, Prince William, was born. This was, for the most part, a happy time for the couple, says Junor. “I’ve interviewed people who visited Kensington Palace in the early 1980s – they describe Diana charging about the house playfully looking for William who had run away and hidden under his father’s desk at bedtime. Others describe Charles chasing Diana up the stairs. I think there were definitely good times. Diana would later tell journalist Andrew Morton that the period just before Harry was born [in 1984] was the happiest the couple had had together. “Diana very much enjoyed being a mother, she absolutely loved William and Harry with every fibre of her being. If you are someone who desperately needs love – as, I would argue, Diana did – there’s nothing quite like a baby to fulfil that need. So having children was the best possible thing for Diana.” Tensions in Prince Charles and Princess Diana's marriage But tensions in the marriage were escalating and Diana’s moods were changeable. “She was incredibly complicated,” says Junor. “There were behaviours that she exhibited privately but not publicly, and I think this is why the public has always found it very hard to believe anything other than Diana’s story. Andrew Morton’s biography, for example, is absolutely Diana’s story, but it’s her story, it’s not the story. "The truth is we’ve never heard Charles’s side. Apart from admitting adultery to Jonathan Dimbleby [in his televised 1994 interview] he has never talked about their marriage or criticised his ex-wife in all these years. “Ultimately I think Charles did everything he could to try to make Diana happy. But she wanted 101 per cent of Charles’s attention all the time, and he was just not the man who would ever have been able to give that to her because the bulk of his attention has always gone on his work.” Tensions also arose as the press and public lavished attention on Diana over-and-above Charles. During their 1983 tour of Australia – which features in season four of The Crown – Charles is said to have bemoaned the fact he was being outshone by his wife. Junor, who joined the royal couple on their very first royal tour – of Wales shortly after their honeymoon – says Charles was often overshadowed by Diana to the extent it was “painful to watch”. During royal tours of towns and cities, thousands of people would line both sides of the street and Charles would meet-and-greet those on one side, Diana the other. “There were audible sighs and groans from people on Charles’s side,” says Junor. “They would hand Charles bouquets of flowers and ask him to pass them to his wife.” <img src="https://images.immediate.co.uk/production/volatile/sites/7/2020/10/GettyImages-716770063-9cbe210.jpg" width="5296" height="3511" alt="Prince Charles and Princess Diana's royal tour of Australia, 1983" title="Princess Diana and Prince Charles visit Yandina Ginger Factory in Queensland, Australia, during their 1983 royal tour of Australia. The tour is expected to feature in series 4 of 'The Crown'. (Photo by Jayne Fincher/Princess Diana Archive/Getty Images)" /> The press were also “obsessed” with Diana, says Junor. Charles would give a speech about an issue dear to him, such as the environment or a charitable cause, but – much to his frustration – newspaper reports the next day would be dominated by photos of Diana, with commentary on her hairstyle, her weight and her clothes, and often speculation as to whether she was pregnant. There would be no mention of his speech. “After a while, this began to really grate on Charles,” says Junor. “He had spent his whole life being in the spotlight. Members of the royal family do their own engagements, they’re used to being the star of the show. So when Charles suddenly found himself being kicked into the wings, with his wife – for all the stupidest reasons, like a hairstyle – suddenly the star, who could blame him for getting a bit peeved?” Read more about the start of ‘Dianamania’ here Would Diana have had a career if she hadn’t met Charles? “I suspect not,” says Junor. “She was not very well educated. And because she was the product of a divorced couple I think each parent probably spoiled her; I don’t think there was any real discipline in her life. “If she started something and wanted to give up, she gave up: she’d gone to finishing school but didn’t like it, so left; she’d done jobs she hadn’t enjoyed, so she’d given them up. And one thing that the royal family has in spades is discipline; their lives are regimented, and I think Diana found that very difficult. “Diana had left boarding school with no real qualifications at all and she wasn’t a great reader of books. In the late 1970s she studied ballet and briefly taught at the Vacani School of Dance, and she had looked after children briefly as a kindergarten teacher. “She had dabbled in lots of things she liked. But with no qualifications she was never going to go anywhere great. She really didn’t need to work; she had plenty of money. So if she hadn’t met Charles, she probably would have married someone posh and had children, staff and nannies – and an active social life.” What was Diana’s relationship like with the Queen and Prince Philip? To begin with, both the Queen and Prince Philip were very enthusiastic about Diana, says Junor. They’d known her as a child because her family lived at Park House on the Sandringham Estate; her father was an equerry to the Queen. Diana was also a similar age to Prince Andrew and she used to attend parties with him. “When Diana stayed at Balmoral in the summer of 1980, the Queen and Prince Philip thought she was enchanting,” says Junor. For many years Charles kept secret the difficulties he and Diana were having in their marriage. “The Queen and Prince Philip were blissfully unaware,” says Junor. “But as time went by and they came to learn of the problems in the marriage through the press, they became very irritated with her. Diana’s behaviour was damaging the monarchy, and if there’s one thing the Queen cares about above all else, it’s the monarchy. She is safeguarding it for the future; that’s the prime task for any monarch.” Read more | Did the Queen really forbid Charles and Diana from divorcing, as is shown in The Crown? When did Charles and Diana’s marriage break down? When did Charles start his affair with Camilla Parker Bowles? Diana would later tell Andrew Morton that she realised her marriage to Charles was over around the time their second son, Harry, was born, in 1984. According to Diana she was crushed by comments Charles supposedly made following the birth. “Something inside of me died,” the princess told Morton. By 1986 the marriage had collapsed and Charles was at what Penny Junor describes as “a critical sort of low”. Two mutual friends, concerned for Charles, independently contacted Camilla and urged her to reach out to him. She picked up the phone to Charles and their friendship restarted from there. “Some years later Charles would confirm that Mrs Parker Bowles was a good friend, but insisted he had been faithful to Diana until their marriage had ‘irretrievably broken down’,” writes Marlene Koenig. Charles and Camilla first saw one another again in 1986 when Charles invited her and her husband, Andrew, for tea at Highgrove. Over the coming months Charles and Camilla’s friendship developed and by around 1987 the pair were romantically involved again, says Junor. “Andrew was still being horribly unfaithful to Camilla and she didn’t feel loved or cherished by him in their marriage,” says Junor. “Meanwhile Diana by this time had had affairs with several men, the first of which was probably with her bodyguard, Barry Mannakee. James Hewitt [a former cavalry officer in the British Army, with whom Diana admitted to having an affair] was also well in the picture by the time Charles went back to Camilla. Charles and Diana were leading very separate lives by this point.” When did Charles and Diana separate and divorce? Charles and Diana lived largely separate lives from around 1986, and Charles’s affair with Camilla continued. In December 1992, after years of speculation by the tabloid press that the marriage was in jeopardy, British prime minister John Major announced that the couple had formally separated. In the summer of 1994, Charles’s interview with Jonathan Dimbleby was televised “in which he admitted infidelity and revealed both a lack of sympathy for Diana… and a worrying distance from his family,” writes Sarah Gristwood in this article for HistoryExtra. This revelation, says Junor, compelled Andrew Parker Bowles to divorce Camilla. The pair announced their divorce in January 1995. A few months later, in November 1995, Princess Diana gave her famous Panorama interview with Martin Bashir in which she told viewers “there were three of us in this marriage – so it was a bit crowded”. Did Charles ask Camilla to leave her husband, as is shown in The Crown? <img src="https://images.immediate.co.uk/production/volatile/sites/7/2020/09/GettyImages-618242606-8a56be0.jpg" width="3966" height="2820" alt="Martin Bashir interviews Princess Diana for the TV programme 'Panorama', November 1995" title="Martin Bashir interviews Princess Diana in Kensington Palace for the television programme 'Panorama', November 1995. (Photo by © Pool Photograph/Corbis/Corbis via Getty Images)" /> Within weeks of the interview, the Queen suggested the couple should divorce – and quickly. Diana’s marriage to Prince Charles was dissolved in August 1996, after four years of separation. <img src="https://images.immediate.co.uk/production/volatile/sites/7/2020/10/GettyImages-51420457-6d65c90.jpg" width="1467" height="991" alt="Britain's national newspaper headlines dated 21 December 1995 report that the Queen has suggested Charles and Diana should divorc" title="Britain's national newspaper headlines dated 21 December 1995 report that the Queen has suggested Charles and Diana should divorce. (Photo by Johnny Eggitt/AFP via Getty Images)" /> On 31 August 1997, Diana was killed in a car accident in Paris. She was 36 years old when she died. In January 1999, Charles and Camilla made their first public appearance together as a couple. Their engagement was announced on 10 February 2005 and they married just a couple of months later on 9 April at a civil wedding at Windsor Guildhall, followed by a Service of Blessing at St George’s Chapel in Windsor Castle. Princess Diana in The Crown Princess Diana first appeared in season 4 of Peter Morgan’s royal drama The Crown, where she was played by Emma Corrin, with Elizabeth Debicki taking on the role in seasons 5 and 6. “As in real life, the collapse of both Anne’s and Andrew’s marriages proved to be a mere sideshow compared to the far more sensational and high-profile split between the Queen’s eldest son and his first wife,” writes historian Tracy Borman of the how the breakdown in Charles and Diana’s marriage is portrayed in season 5. Read on to explore more of the real history of The Crown and events seen on screen: Diana and Charles’s wedding: everything you need to know Prince Charles and Camilla: a history of their romance The Queen’s “rebel sister”: 8 facts about Princess Margaret Buckingham Palace intruder Michael Fagan: what happened and why did he break in? Was the Queen opposed to the Falklands War? The Crown: the real history Why was Lord Mountbatten, Prince Charles’s great-uncle, assassinated? Everything you need to know about King Charles III, formerly Prince Charles Who is Queen Camilla, formerly the Duchess of Cornwall? Queen Elizabeth II and Prince Philip: 8 milestones in their marriage Who is Princess Anne, daughter of Queen Elizabeth II? This article was written following an interview in November 2020 with royal biographer Penny Junor, who is the author of 10 books on members of the royal family including Charles and Diana: portrait of a marriage (Headline, 1991)
7 things you (probably) didn’t know about the Napoleonic Wars
Jem Duducu, author of The Napoleonic Wars in 100 Facts, reveals seven things you might not have known about the 25 years (or so) of conflict...
What were the Napoleonic Wars? The Napoleonic Wars were a series of conflicts that occurred from 1803 to 1815, fought between France under Napoleon and a series of coalitions of European powers. Though the Napoleonic Wars are often seen as a clash of European powers fighting for dominance over the European continent, in many ways they were also an example of a global conflict before the outbreak of the First World War in 1914. The Napoleonic Wars are usually numbered by the coalitions that were raised against Napoleonic France between 1803 and 1815: The War of the Third Coalition, 1805–06 The War of the Fourth Coalition, 1806–07 The War of the Fifth Coalition, 1809 The War of the Sixth Coalition, 1813–14 The War of the Seventh Coalition, also known as the Hundred Days, 1815 What of the wars of the first and second coalitions? These precede the Napoleonic Wars, both being part of the French Revolutionary Wars of the 1790s. Read more | Napoleonic Wars timeline: the key dates you need to know Why did the Napoleonic Wars happen? There are many explanations, but you could consider the Napoleonic Wars to be a consequence of the French Revolutionary Wars, which concluded with the 1802 Peace of Amiens. These wars had left France in a commanding strategic position in Western Europe, “something that no other European power could tolerate, because it appeared to threaten their own strategic security”, says Michael Rapport, reader in modern European history at the University of Glasgow, who spoke to us about the Napoleonic Wars on the HistoryExtra podcast. “Any peace – which occurred in 1802 through the Treaty of Amiens – was going to be really a truce.” That peace broke down in 1803. “The Peace of Amiens wasn't really honoured by either side,” he says. Neither side really trusted each other.” Who was Napoleon? The Napoleonic Wars are named after a single man – Napoleon Bonaparte. How did a young, inexperienced artillery officer from Corsica rise to such a position of military prominence, not to mention Emperor of France? It took Napoleon just six years from being a relative unknown in 1793 to taking personal rule of France through a coup d’etat in 1799, something Rapport believes that it is no small part thanks to the French Revolution itself. “What the revolution did was it unlocked careers in the army, in government and in law to talent, rather than to birth and status,” he says. “Even though he was noble and he was never barred from the officer corps, the chances of him maybe advancing really high up were probably slimmer than they would have been if it hadn't been for the French Revolution.” War itself provided opportunities. Staggering death rates among officers plus the loss of royalists created opportunities for advancement – if you were politically motivated that is (“Napoleon, initially at least – wore some Republican credentials fairly visibly,” notes Rapport.) Read more about the rise and fall of Napoleon How did the Napoleonic Wars end? In March 1814, the allied powers of the Sixth Coalition occupied Paris, prompting Napoleon’s abdication on 11 April. He was exiled to Elba, an island home to some 12,000 people just off Italy’s Tuscan coast, to live out his days as its sovereign. And that should have been the end of that. Napoleon was held in high esteem even after his abdication, and so when he and 700 of his followers escaped from Elba back to France, he quickly gained support. Among the most totemic was his former marshal turned royalist commander, Michel Ney. Sent to intercept Napoleon, Ney had promised to bring him back to Paris in an iron cage; instead he joined his army of 6,000 to Napoleon’s. So began the Hundred Days, Napoleon’s final roll of the dice. Realising that he could not sit still in Paris, lest the powers of Europe join and assault him en masse, he went on the offensive – culminating in the battle of Waterloo. Waterloo was Napoleon’s final defeat, at the hands of Britain and Prussia. He was forced to abdicate once more, and banished anew – this time he was exiled to St Helena, an East India Company possession deep in the Atlantic, where he remained until his death in 1821. How many people died during the Napoleonic Wars? Five million people died in the Napoleonic Wars between 1803 and 1815, notes Rapport. “It's an estimate, but it's the best estimate we have,” he says. “In terms of the size of the European population at the time, that is the same number, proportionately, as in the First World War.” Michael Rapport is reader in modern European history at the University of Glasgow and the author of The Napoleonic Wars: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford University Press, 2013). He was speaking to Jon Bauckham On the podcast | The Napoleonic Wars: Everything you wanted to know Seven facts about the Napoleonic Wars… The young Napoleon showed little promise The Bonapartes (Buonapartes in Italian) originated in Italy, but Napoleon was born into a branch of the family that moved to Corsica [an island in the Mediterranean Sea belonging to France]. His parents were both of minor Corsican nobility and had married young. The couple had had another son called Napoleon four years before the more famous one, but the child died in infancy. Growing up in Corsica, Napoleon’s first language was Italian, not French. However, as his family was well off (by Corsican standards), he and his brother Joseph were sent to military academies in France. Read more | What killed Napoleon Bonaparte? Napoleon did not fit in particularly well. While he did learn French, he spoke it with an accent that betrayed his roots, and he was teased for sounding like a peasant. Furthermore, the other boys came from well-connected and more affluent families, and while they were good at dancing, Napoleon’s skills lay in gardening. It was not a promising start for a boy who, at various times, dreamed of becoming an officer in the French navy or an artillery instructor in the Ottoman Empire. How different history would have been had he taken one of those routes. Aged 15, Napoleon was admitted to the elite École Militaire in Paris. This was a huge honour, which turned into a disaster when his father died of stomach cancer while Napoleon was in his first year. The young cadet was now expected to be the family’s chief source of income, while at the same time attending one of the most expensive schools in France. The situation forced him to complete the two-year course in just one, and while he came only 42nd in a class of 58, graduation meant he could become a commissioned officer just after his 16th birthday. By 1791, as war was about to break out across Europe, Napoleon, still a second lieutenant stationed in a sleepy garrison town, went on leave to see his family in Corsica. This was about as unexceptional a start to a military career as can be imagined. No one could have predicted that within 10 years Napoleon would be the most feared military commander in Europe, and later would become one of the greatest generals in history. Read more | Your guide to the Seven Years' War The royal navy attacked a city France was courting Denmark and Norway in 1801, and, if they could be persuaded to join the fight, it looked like Russia might also join them. The possibility that Denmark might attack the British mainland could not be contemplated – something had to be done. Step forward Admiral Parker, who was sent to carry out some very British gunboat diplomacy (ie turn up with some warships and force a settlement). It wasn’t necessarily meant to be a shooting war. When the royal navy arrived, the Danish fleet was moored against the gun batteries and naval defences of the city, so a frontal assault would have been impossible. However, Parker’s subordinate was Vice Admiral Nelson, who was just the right mix of brilliant, brave and mad. He attacked the weaker southern end of the Danish defences, which resulted in a brutal artillery duel between land and sea. Parker lacked Nelson’s grit and, on seeing the devastating effect of close-quarter cannon fire, signalled the retreat. Nelson replied with a signal that acknowledged the order, but did nothing. Instead, he lifted his telescope to his blind eye and said to his flag-captain, Thomas Foley: “You know, Foley, I only have one eye. I have the right to be blind sometimes.” Read more | 5 facts you (probably) didn’t know about Nelson’s navy With that, he continued to press his attack. In the heat of the battle, Nelson was seen to be carefully preparing a letter for the terms of Copenhagen’s surrender – amid the roar of cannons, the screams of men and the sound of splintering wood. This forced at least one of his officers to conclude that Nelson had lost his mind, but Nelson calmly explained that if he was seen to have the time and the conditions to prepare a decent letter, it would make the Danes think they weren’t causing as much damage as they were. It was remarkable logic, and an example of the ultimate cool head under fire. The ruse worked, and Copenhagen surrendered. Remarkably, no royal navy ships were sunk; however, around 1,000–1,200 British crew were either killed or wounded. The Danes suffered 50 per cent more casualties and lost three ships, including their flagship, the Dannebrog, when it exploded. After this short but bloody encounter, the two nations agreed an armistice. Following this, Parker sailed the fleet to Sweden in an attempt to persuade it to break away from the armed neutrality league that had been set up in the Baltic, but the Swedes declined his offer. As a result of Parker’s wavering at Copenhagen, followed by his rather lacklustre display in Sweden, he was relieved of duty, and Nelson was promoted to vice-admiral. All sides understood the ‘propaganda war’ The Napoleonic Wars were not the first to use the medium of print for propaganda purposes – The Times, for example, started in 1785 as The Daily Universal Register, was not above bias. But this particular era of conflict excelled at printing scurrilous opinions and defamatory cartoons. The leaders of the age knew the power of the press. As Napoleon once said: “Four hostile newspapers are more to be feared than a thousand bayonets.” However, it wasn’t just opinion pieces that influenced; imagery was often more powerful and lingered longer. Napoleon understood this, and became known for self-aggrandisement. The famous painting of him crossing the Alps (painted by the French artist Jacques-Louis David between 1801 and 1805), for example, shows a strongly idealised view of the real crossing that Napoleon and his army made across the Alps. Napoleon also made sure his coronation as emperor was immortalised in oil paintings, and both he and his wife, Josephine, commissioned regal portraits of themselves in their splendid imperial robes. While Napoleon didn’t plan his own tomb, it continued the themes of power and supremacy – this time with Napoleon as an Adonis; a god among men. Brilliant general he assuredly was, but physically Napoleon was a little on the pudgy side, and had a crooked nose. Napoleon had the twin advantages of being both a general and an absolute ruler; he was able to dictate and control the French press. Britain did not provide its monarchs and leaders with the same benefits; it had a freer press, and parliamentary democracy meant magazines could draw witheringly satirical cartoons of friend and foe alike. For example, Napoleon’s nickname, ‘Boney’, was a British invention designed to conjure antipathy. At the time, it was thought that having some meat on your bones was a good thing; therefore, horrible old ‘Boney’ was a wraith to be feared or mocked. ‘Boney’ stood in stark contrast to the famous John Bull cartoon popularised first by British print makers. Bull was the national personification of England; a plump, down-to-earth patriot and beer lover. Napoleon is often portrayed as compensating for his lack of stature with comically large hats and boots. But to set the record straight, Napoleon wasn’t short. This misunderstanding arose because French measurements were different to British ones, and we now know that Napoleon was a little taller than the average man of his time (although he would probably have looked diminutive standing next to someone like the Duke of Wellington). The idea that Napoleon was short still exists to this day, all thanks to British propaganda from 200 years ago. The best way to defeat Spain was to invade Argentina By 1806, Britain had been at war almost constantly for well over a decade. Its continental allies were continually being humbled by French armies, and Britain’s own contributions to the war thus far had been mainly naval victories. However, William Pitt and Sir Home Riggs Popham (the British royal naval commander) had been mulling over for a year or so ideas to weaken France’s main ally, Spain. Spain’s South American empire was largely undefended. Trying to resist a British invasion there would take Spanish troops away from the resources that Napoleon could use in Europe. So, in short, it was decided (by Popham, without authorisation) that the best way to win a war against France in Europe was to invade Argentina in South America. These operations were referred to as the British invasions of the Río de la Plata. Britain achieved early success when it captured Buenos Aires – one of the key cities in the area – and held it for more than a month. When the invaders were ejected, it wasn’t thanks to the arrival of Spanish troops, but an uprising of the local population. In 1807, the British responded by sending a larger invasion force – this time successfully storming Montevideo, where they stayed for a few months just to prove a point. Shortly afterwards, the British sent a third force back to Buenos Aires, but after heavy fighting with a combined force of Spanish soldiers standing side-by-side with the local militia, they were pushed back and suffered more than 50 per cent casualties. The British lost this campaign. It was an ambitious plan that had assumed resistance could only be achieved by Spanish regular troops. In fact, it was the bravery of the locals that saved Río de la Plata from becoming part of the British empire. The repercussions of this attempted invasion were unforeseen by everyone. The Spanish were, at first, overjoyed that their colonies had resisted so resolutely. However, those same colonies felt their actions had earned them the right to be considered the equal of their colonial masters in Spain. The Spanish were, at this time, also having serious trouble with a French invasion of their own country, so could do little. By 1810, the South American colonies felt confident enough to carry out their own revolution (the May Revolution), which removed the Spanish Viceroy and set up a local government for the first time. This led, in July 1816, to the declaration of independence for the United Provinces of South America, which later became known as Argentina. At the time, some of the ex-Spanish colonies were at war with each other but, overall, shrugging off the old colonial overlord was seen as beneficial. The irony then was that while Britain lost the campaign, it achieved its goals of weakening Spain and distracting Spanish priorities and forces. Another irony is that today in Argentina, Britain’s actions of 1806–7 are seen as the trigger for independence, and are widely considered to have been a good thing. Nobody expected the Spanish Inquisition to end The story of the Spanish Inquisition [a tribunal established in 1478 by Catholic Monarchs Ferdinand II of Aragon and Isabella I of Castile, intended to maintain Catholic orthodoxy in their kingdoms] is a long and complex one. However, the first area to come under its scrutiny was in 12th-century France. The more notorious version of these religious enquiries into potential heretics or apostates started in Spain in the late 15th century, and never really went away until the 19th century. The French Revolution (which began in 1789) sparked real concerns in Spain. King Charles IV worried about how his people might regard the wealth and power not only of the monarchy, but also of the church. With this in mind, he took steps to clip the wings of the Spanish Inquisition. A number of the monolithic Catholic organisations were anathema to the enlightenment ideals of revolutionary France, and there were a number of times Napoleon (and others) dismantled century old ‘Holy Cows’ in the name of modernity. Read more | What triggered the French Revolution? When the French invaded Malta they had ended the Hospitallers; a religious organisation founded in the Middle Ages. Napoleon also abolished another ancient organisation, the Holy Roman Empire, the argument being that it too was a remnant of a theocratic past incompatible with a new Europe. So it should therefore come as little surprise that once the French invaded Spain, it was Joseph Bonaparte who tried to abolish the Spanish Inquisition once and for all. However, Bonaparte was king of Spain from 1808 to 1813, which wasn't long enough to overthrow all the old ways. Consequently, by 1814 the inquisition was back in business. The last person to be killed by the Spanish Inquisition was a teacher in 1826, for suggesting so-called heretical ideas. The inquisition was officially abolished in 1834. The showdown at Waterloo was delayed due to rain With the battles of Quatre Bras and Ligny fought on 16 June 1815, and all the main forces still in roughly the same area, it would have been safe to assume that the next clash would be on the 17th. However, there were surprises in store for everyone. First of all, Marshall Ney, Napoleon’s right-hand man returned to Quatre Bras to fight the second round of this encounter… except that when he got there, he found that Wellington had largely moved on. The challenge then was to find the allied positions and engage. However, while a brief skirmish did take place between the British and French on the 17th, it quickly faded as the heavens opened and torrential rain lashed all the armies for hours. A year earlier, Wellington had been in this very region, and had recognised that a ridge with a reverse slope would be the perfect defensive position for a battle, should one ever take place in the area. Now was the time, and he positioned his forces both along and behind the ridge, located near the small Belgian town of Waterloo. Read more | How the French won Waterloo (or think they did) Wellington spent the night at a Waterloo inn, impatiently waiting for communication from the Prussian leader Blücher. It finally came at around 2am. After that, Wellington was wide awake and spent the rest of the night consulting with his officers and sending out orders. Blücher’s message had been delayed while he argued with his subordinate, Gneisenau, about how their forces could effectively work with Wellington’s. Blücher knew that a concentration of troops was the best bet to beat Napoleon; however, Gneisenau distrusted the British. Meanwhile, Napoleon was unusually indecisive. Grouchy had not advanced as fast as he’d hoped, and in the middle of the night Napoleon was seen going for a walk. He sent ambiguous orders to Grouchy who, instead of coming to his aid, continued to advance towards Wavre. Napoleon bedded down in a farmhouse and, in the morning, had fine breakfast with his officers. When they expressed concerns about Wellington – the only major allied general Napoleon had yet to face on the battlefield – Napoleon admonished them by saying: “Just because you have all been beaten by Wellington, you think he's a good general. I tell you Wellington is a bad general; the English are bad troops, and this affair is nothing more than eating breakfast.” On the morning of 18 June, Napoleon delayed the start of battle as he waited for the ground to harden after the downpour of the previous day. This, he believed, would make it easier to reposition his artillery, and would allow better conditions for cavalry movements. He gave Ney operational command and could be seen sitting in an armchair, miles from the front line. It seems that Napoleon had been, once again, struck down with illness, and his haemorrhoids made it impossible for him to remain in the saddle for the whole day. Waterloo was not the final battle against France Conflicts are messy. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that there is no neat ending to this period of warfare. Waterloo was undeniably the most pivotal battle of this campaign, and it shattered Napoleon’s authority – less than a week after the battle, Napoleon abdicated. But the fighting had been in Belgium, and the race was now on to get to the French capital to ensure an allied army was present to oversee the dismantling of Napoleonic power and the return of Louis XVIII. Read more | What is the significance of Waterloo? The French, however, didn’t see things in quite the same way. They had around 65,000 troops in the area [25,000 others had been killed or wounded at Waterloo, and 9,000 captured], and French General Vandamme led part of that army out to meet the approaching Prussians at a small town to the south of Paris. Wellington’s forces were also on their way, so quite what Vandamme was hoping to achieve is uncertain. He might not have been able to win in the long run, but in the short term he’d be damned if he’d allow Blücher to march to the capital without a fight. The allies had come in a southerly direction because Paris’s main defences had been constructed north of the Seine. The battle was a Prussian/French affair because Vandamme chose to attack Blücher, rather than Wellington. Battle commenced on 2 July 1815 around the town of Issy and the commanding heights of Meudon. That night a council in Paris discussed whether it was time to surrender; however, it was Davout, one of Napoleon’s most loyal and talented marshals, who dug in his heels and insisted that Vandamme should try to oust the Prussians from their position. The next day the French attacked the Prussians (who by now had barricaded themselves in) with artillery fire. Then the French infantry advanced. After fierce fighting, the French were driven back, only to regroup and try to break the Prussians once more. This attempt also failed, and for the rest of the day the French alternated between pounding the Prussians with cannon fire and then surging forwards with an infantry assault. But the French never threw everything they had into any assault. Vandamme, for reasons unknown, never fully committed to the battle, and because of this the Prussians were able to hold their positions (despite high casualties). Ultimately, the French were forced to retreat back to Paris. The Prussians pursued Vandamme’s retreating men, and some forward units even clashed with the French rear guard in the Parisian suburbs. This was quickly followed by a unilateral French ceasefire, and by now, Wellington had linked up with Blücher. Allied negotiators met French representatives at the Palace of St Cloud, chosen as a relatively neutral location. It was here that Paris formally surrendered in a hastily created document now rather formally known as ‘The Convention of St Cloud’. Ironically, the palace was destroyed by German troops the next time the Prussians attacked Paris, in 1870. In summary, the Napoleonic Wars are like most of history – a swirling mass of facts, with areas that simply don’t fit into an easy narrative. But they shaped the political and cultural landscapes from Egypt to Russia and from Argentina to Belgium. Today, their legacy reverberates throughout Europe and beyond. The above facts are abridged versions taken from Jem Duducu’s The Napoleonic Wars in 100 Facts (Amberley Publishing, 2015). Find out more, and you can also follow him on X (formerly Twitter) @JemDuducu This article was first published by HistoryExtra in June 2015
10 scandalous moments in Wimbledon’s history
We look back at some of the most memorable moments in the history of the tennis championships – from ignored outfit regulations and bad weather to celebrity spectators and streaking
Here, we bring you 10 scandalous Wimbledon history facts… 1926: Royalty playing at Wimbledon Members of the royal family have long taken their seats in the royal box on Centre Court, but in 1926 George VI decided to break with tradition: the then Duke of York took to the court in the men’s doubles tournament with wing commander Louis Greig. The duke faced Arthur Gore (aged 58) and H Roper Barrett (aged 52). 10 things you didn’t know about London’s sporting history Experience triumphed over youth in this match, however – the future monarch was defeated in three straight sets. George VI is the only member of the royal family to have played at Wimbledon. 1949: Knickers in a twist Over the decades, female tennis players have donned small skirts and shorts during their matches. However, ‘Gorgeous Gussie’ Moran caused scandal during the 1949 championships when she wore ruffled lace knickers underneath her tennis skirt. Her choice of attire prompted some members of the All England Club to argue that Moran was causing “vulgarity and sin” in tennis, and questions about the issue were even raised in parliament. Despite being seeded as seventh out of the women’s American players, Moran shot almost overnight to celebrity status, and went on to make it to the doubles final. In her later competitions, Moran chose to wear shorts rather than skirts. Read more | 1921: the year when football banned women 1957: Protests during Queen Elizabeth II’s visit to Wimbledon During the men’s doubles finals between Neale Fraser and Lew Hoad against Gardnar Molloy and Budge Patty, a protester jumped over the courtside wall and got onto the Centre Court while holding a sign that read ‘Save Our Queen’. Protester Helen Jarvis was campaigning for the ‘Life, Love and Sex Appeal Party’, and she declared that she wanted a new banking system in the UK. Policemen and the match’s referee, Col Legg, quickly escorted Jarvis off of the court. This did not put off Queen Elizabeth II from returning to Wimbledon, however: she went on to attend matches in 1962, 1977 and 2010. 1973: Industrial strike Industrial disputes in 1973 saw the majority of the men’s field withdraw from the championships. This came about after the International Lawn Tennis Federation refused the world number one, Niki Pilic, from playing at Wimbledon after he decided to play in a Canadian professional doubles tournament rather than attending the Davis Cup earlier in the year. The new tennis players’ union, the Association of Tennis Professionals, ordered that players should be allowed to play where they liked, rather than where the ILTF ordered them to play. The ILTF clashed with the Association of Tennis Professionals, and many top tennis seeds backed a decision to strike from playing at that year’s Wimbledon. A total of 79 players withdrew from the championships, 13 of which were original seeds. However, the withdrawal of so many top seeds did not allow an underdog to take the top spot in the final. Instead, Jan Kodes, who had previously won the French Open twice, beat Alex Metreveli in straight sets. 1981: John McEnroe was definitely serious In 1981 McEnroe famously shouted in a rage “you cannot be serious!” after the umpire made numerous calls against him. He was also fined $1,500 for calling umpire Ted James “the pits of the world” before swearing at Fred Hoyles, the tournament referee. McEnroe also described one of the line judges as an “incompetent fool”, and summed up his opinion of Wimbledon when he exclaimed: “There's nothing championship about this tournament except its prestige.” McEnroe still went on to beat Bjorn Borg in the final after four sets to become the men’s champion. He declined to attend the annual champions’ dinner. 1985: An 80s fashion faux pas Gussie Moran might have shocked onlookers with her lace-trimmed knickers in 1949, but Anne White went further against the strict clothing regulations in 1985 when, during a first round against fifth seed Pam Shriver, she decided to wear a full-length white lycra body suit, along with matching white legwarmers. After winning one set each, the game was suspended for the evening. The match referee, Alan Mills, told White she should reconsider her outfit choice so that the match could continue the next day. After the match, White said of her outfit: “I had no idea it would be so controversial”. 1985: Lightning hits Centre Court The first Monday of the 1985 competition was, quite literally, an explosive day of events after lightning struck the press centre. The centre was based in the new administrative building that had recently cost £4 million to construct. Television footage shows the ball boys and girls jumping in shock as the lightning hit the foundations of the court. Spectators were lucky to miss the six large pieces of masonry that fell around 90ft onto those sat below. One such spectator told the Sarasota Herald Tribune that the falling masonry “missed me by two feet. But it makes a lovely souvenir!” 1991: A wash out After the first week of play of the 1991 Championships became known as one of the wettest first weeks in Wimbledon’s history, this resulted in only 52 out of 240 games being played by Thursday evening. This pressured organisers to stage play on ‘middle Sunday’ – traditionally a day off in the Wimbledon calendar – for the first time in the championship’s history. Spectators eagerly lined up for the £10 top unreserved seats, forming a queue nearly two miles long. A total of 24,894 people attended the All England Lawn Tennis Club that day, with ticket holders able to watch numerous games, including a third-round match between Gabriela Sabatini and Andrea Strnadova, and match on court number one between three-time champion John McEnroe against Jean-Philippe Fleurian. Wet weather forced players to take to the court on ‘middle Sunday’ again in 1997. 1996: Cliff Richard amuses the crowd In 1996, during rainy delays on Centre Court, Sir Cliff Richard, who was a spectator in the crowd, decided to raise spirits by delivering an improvised performance to the crowd. The singer appropriately chose ‘Singing in the Rain’, sung with the help of an unlikely choir made up of tennis stars Martina Navratilova, Virginia Wade, Gigi Fernandez, Conchita Martinez and Pam Shriver. Sir Cliff later said of the crowd: “They were magnificent, from the first moment. The reaction was stunning." 1996: Streaking shocks the crowds The 1996 men’s single finalists, Dutch Richard Krajicek and American MaliVai Washington, weren’t expecting an extra competitor on the court for their match. However, during the pre-match photograph, a female streaker - wearing only a small pinafore - ran across the court in front of a packed crowd. Reflecting on the event, the BBC’s John Barrett said: “I never thought I’d see that on the Centre Court. The two boys hardly knew where to look”. Read more | “A nation addicted to gaming”: the Georgians’ crackdown on addictive betting Maria Sharapova and Elena Dementieva found themselves in a similar predicament in 2006 when a male streaker invaded the court during their quarterfinal fixture. After jumping over the barrier immediately behind the umpire’s chair and removing his shorts (but still wearing his socks and trainers), the streaker made his way onto the court, jumping up and down and cartwheeling across the court. Sharapova was not dazed by his appearance, however: she went on to win the second set, therefore winning the match in two straight sets. This article was first published by HistoryExtra in 2015
What is Juneteenth, and how is it celebrated?
Celebrated annually since 1865, Juneteenth is considered the longest-running African-American holiday. But as many as 60 per cent of Americans know “nothing at all” or only “a little bit” about the holiday marking the end of slavery in the United States. Here, we explore the history of Juneteenth and explain its significance
What is Juneteenth? Juneteenth – short for ‘June nineteenth’ – is a celebration marking the moment in 1865 when enslaved black people in Galveston, Texas, found out they were freed – more than two years after President Abraham Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation. It is also known as Emancipation Day, Juneteenth Independence Day, and Jubilee Day. Juneteenth has been celebrated annually in the African-American community since 1865 and is considered the longest-running African-American holiday. But it only became a federal holiday in the United States in 2021. Texas became the first state to designate Juneteenth as an official state holiday back in 1980. All other 49 states (and the District of Columbia) have since recognised the day. Former president Barack Obama co-sponsored legislation to make Juneteenth a national holiday when he was senator of Illinois, but the law was never passed. It was President Joe Biden who last year signed the Juneteenth National Independence Day Act, formally recognising Juneteenth as a national holiday. The federal legislation was signed into law after passing unanimously in the US Senate and by a vote of 415–14 in the House of Representatives. President Biden signed the Act in the White House on Thursday 17 June 2021. “Great nations don't ignore their most painful moments,” he said. “We come to terms with the mistakes we made. And remembering those moments, we begin to heal and grow stronger.” Juneteenth is the first new federal holiday since Martin Luther King Jr Day was established in 1983. What happened on Juneteenth? On 19 June 1865, around 2,000 Union troops arrived in Galveston Bay, Texas, to inform enslaved African-Americans of their freedom and to tell them the Civil War had ended. Led by Major General Gordon Granger, who had fought for the Union, the troops took control of the state and announced that the 250,000 enslaved black people in the state were free by executive decree. Why did the South lose the American Civil War? Upon his arrival, Granger read out General Order No 3, informing the residents that slavery would no longer be tolerated and that all enslaved people were now free. Enslaved people would henceforth be treated as hired workers if they chose to remain on the plantations, according to the National Museum of African American History and Culture. But not all enslaved people were immediately freed – or even soon after. “It was not uncommon for slave owners, unwilling to give up free labour, to refuse to release their slaves until forced to, in person, by a representative of the government,” writes Sharon Pruitt-Young, referencing the work of the historian Henry Louis Gates Jr. Even after Granger’s announcement, many white people in Texas continued to enslave people who had not heard the news, the Pulitzer Prize–winning historian Annette Gordon-Reed explains. “Those who had heard were often forcibly prevented from acting as if any material change had taken place. Freedom had come in legal terms, but the story was not so clear on the ground as it was on paper. Former enslavers unleashed violence upon the people whom they had claimed as property, and others threatened to do so in order to make people work. Amid joy and hope was great malevolence and power.” And some of the behaviour of Lincoln’s Union troops towards the former slaves who had escaped or been freed by their owners “was horribly compromised”, writes Lucy Worsley in this article for BBC History Magazine. In one shameful incident, Union troops left a group of formerly enslaved African-Americans for dead at Ebenezer Creek near Savannah. Brigadier General Jefferson C Davis viewed them as an encumbrance of “useless negroes”, slowing him down and increasing risk. Worsley explains: “Davis’s army used pontoon bridges to cross a swamp of deep-running black waters at Ebenezer Creek. But in an act that stains the memory and motives of the Union side, he left his unwelcome recruits behind and in danger of falling into Confederate hands. One of Davis’s colleagues believed that this must result in ‘all these negroes being recaptured or perhaps brutally shot’. In the event, many of them died trying to cross the swamp on their own makeshift rafts, or even by swimming through its waters.” The end of slavery did not mean equality for black Americans, either. “The ending of slavery in a formal sense turned into less official forms of abuse of African-Americans,” says Worsley. “Racial segregation became a fact of life in many formerly Confederate states, as did using the formerly enslaved as poorly paid labour. Indeed, ‘slavery’ was still possible – in all but name.” A collection of statutes known as the Jim Crow laws forced black people to live, work, and play separately. The laws existed for about 100 years, from the post-Civil War era until the 1950s. <img src="https://images.immediate.co.uk/production/volatile/sites/7/2022/06/GettyImages-515058721-25c1ec1.jpg" width="5182" height="3549" alt="A passenger under a sign that reads 'Colored Waiting Room' at a bus station, Durham, North Carolina, 1940" title="A passenger under a sign that reads 'Colored Waiting Room' at a bus station, Durham, North Carolina, 1940. (Photo by Jack Delano/PhotoQuest/Getty Images)" /> Texas, which had a smaller percentage of black people than other southern states like Mississippi or Alabama, “was a very hard place”, says historian Annette Gordon-Reed. Between 1882 and 1968, it had the third-highest number of lynchings in the United States. Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation The ‘Emancipation Proclamation’ issued by President Abraham Lincoln on 1 January 1863 established that all enslaved people in Confederate states in rebellion against the Union “shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free”. But the Proclamation could not be implemented in places still under Confederate control. As a result, in the westernmost Confederate state of Texas, where there was no large Union Army presence, slavery continued years after the Emancipation Proclamation. How Abraham Lincoln's 1860 election victory set America on the path to Civil War The Emancipation Proclamation did not promise freedom to all enslaved people. And “a number of slave-owning states remained loyal to the Union. Some of those with vulnerable, valuable positions on the border of the Confederacy were allowed to maintain slavery in order to keep them on Lincoln and the Union’s side,” writes Lucy Worsley. How is Juneteenth celebrated? After they were freed, some former enslaved people and their descendants would travel to Galveston annually in honour of Juneteenth, writes Sharon Pruitt-Young. “But it wasn't uncommon for white people to bar black people from celebrating in public spaces, forcing [them] to get creative.” In one such case, community members in Houston, Texas – who were all formerly enslaved people – raised $1,000 to purchase land in 1872 that would be devoted specifically to Juneteenth celebrations. It was named Emancipation Park. In the years that followed, Emancipation parks sprung up all over the US. Emancipation Park is today one of Houston’s oldest parks. Today, Juneteenth is celebrated in a variety of different ways, including parades, carnivals, picnics, and street fairs. Food is a central part of the celebrations – many enjoy meals of red food and drink, which are meant to symbolise sacrifice, resilience, and transformation. Historians note that enslaved people “were often fed foods that were muted in colour and poor in quality, so red foods were prized for being a very special treat”. Today, red velvet cake, watermelon, and red soda water are particularly popular. <img src="https://images.immediate.co.uk/production/volatile/sites/7/2022/06/GettyImages-1233550962-2d29020.jpg" width="4500" height="3000" alt="Members of Reedy Chapel African Methodist Episcopal Church march to celebrate Juneteenth, 19 June 2021, Galveston, Texas" title="Members of Reedy Chapel African Methodist Episcopal Church march to celebrate Juneteenth, 19 June 2021, Galveston, Texas. (Photo by Go Nakamura/Getty Images)" /> Why is Juneteenth important? Pulitzer Prize–winning historian Annette Gordon-Reed, author of On Juneteenth, says that when she was younger and living in Texas, celebrating Juneteenth “was like celebrating the Fourth of July, but for Black people”. Reacting last year to the news that Juneteenth had been made a federal holiday, Gordon-Reed said: “Making it a national holiday, something that everybody celebrates, not just Texans, is a way of bringing the story of enslaved people into closer focus. And, I should say, also the aftermath of slavery and the struggle that African-Americans have still been on from those days until today.” Meanwhile Mary Elliott, curator of American Slavery at the Smithsonian National Museum of African American History and Culture, says: “Juneteenth is for everyone to pause and really think about the meaning and manifestation of freedom.” Looking to the future of Juneteenth celebrations, Annette Gordon-Reed says: “I would like to see it evolve. I would like to see it continue to be a day, not just for celebration, but a time for thinking about the serious issues that were involved here with the institution of slavery and the problem of racial discrimination.” Gordon-Reed urged people to reflect during the weeks between Juneteenth and 4 July (Independence Day) on the fact that “not everyone got their freedom in 1776. A lot of us were left out of the original draft of the Constitution”. A Juneteenth dilemma University of San Diego historians Professor Channon Miller and Professor TJ Tallie say that 19 June 1865 “marked a moment from whence Black Texans could stake their claim as free people, simultaneously proclaiming their humanity and importance while also rejecting the idea of being the recipients of political largesse.” But in this article published in Perspectives on History magazine, the professors also say the formal recognition of Juneteenth as a federal holiday is “troubling”. They write: “Juneteenth is a sacred and special holiday for Black Americans with a specific cultural history and intent. It is a form of freedom-making and freedom-marking that has unique meaning for us that cannot be generalized into a wider celebration of freedom for all people in the United States any more than Diwali or Hanukkah can be generalized into universal appreciations of light in the darkness that can be claimed by anyone. “One of the legacies of enslavement has been the idea that Black people – their bodies, their culture, their work, their livelihoods – are not theirs alone, but communal property. “This act [the federal holiday proclamation] points to the country’s enduring use of Black people’s visions and articulations of freedom for its own symbolic displays of democracy and exceptionalism. Such a move is performative. Rather than partnering in the ongoing struggle for Black freedom, this bill fails to improve the material, day-to-day lives of Black Americans… The federal government’s commemoration of Juneteenth is a hollow one as long as it refuses to allow the freedom trumpet to sound.” Read their full argument in full Meanwhile, Mark Anthony Neal, an author and distinguished professor of African and African-American Studies at Duke University, urges people to remember that Juneteenth “is an example of a Black American tradition that existed well before it was ‘legitimized’ by white American society”. What is the Juneteenth flag? The original Juneteenth flag was created in 1997 by the National Juneteenth Celebration Foundation (NJCF) founder, Ben Haith. While many in the African-American community choose to incorporate the colours red, black, and green in their celebrations of Juneteenth, the colours of the Juneteenth flag are red, white, and blue “to signify the belonging of Black Americans in the fabric of the US”, writes Professor Mark Anthony Neal. The flag is emblazoned with a star surrounded by a burst. The star is a nod to Texas, known as ‘The Lone Star State’, while the burst is thought to represent new opportunities that lie ahead for black people. The date “June 19, 1865” was added to the flag in 2004. The American Civil War and the end of slavery: 9 articles to read right now Lincoln and slavery: "If I could save the union without freeing any slave, I would" To generations of Americans, Abraham Lincoln is the Great Emancipator, the man who ended slavery. But, argues historian Lucy Worsley, scratch beneath the surface and you’ll find that the president’s motives weren’t as unblemished as many people believe 8 podcasts about slavery and the slave trade to listen to right now BBC History Revealed editor Charlotte Hodgman rounds up eight HistoryExtra podcasts about the slave trade – from the Haitian slave rebellion to the history of slavery within the British empire... Harriet Tubman and the Underground Railroad: how one woman saved hundreds from hell The Underground Railroad saved thousands from the hell of slavery, but one name will always stand out as the symbol of courage, selflessness, and freedom, writes journalist Jonny Wilkes The story of the American Civil War: 32 key moments in the landmark conflict With the Declaration of Independence in 1776, 13 former British colonies became the United States of America, but by the 1830s it was clear the new nation was divided. Adam IP Smith explains how the issue of slavery, above all, created discord between north and south, and forced political tension to rise Freedom fighters: the enslaved people who fought for the abolition of slavery Victory in the fight against slavery has been mostly credited to white abolitionists – with the struggles of enslaved people to gain their own freedom largely overlooked, says James Walvin The American Civil War: 7 facts and fictions The American Civil War – fought between the United States and 11 southern states that had formed the ‘Confederate States of America’ – began in 1861 and ended in 1865. It was America's bloodiest clash, claiming more than 620,000 lives. Yet, argues novelist David Sanger, the four-year war is often romanticised – particularly the idea of a ‘plucky’ South against the bold and morally-driven North. Here, Sanger explores seven facts and fictions surrounding the conflict Escaping slavery in the American South (podcast) How can we reconstruct the experiences of enslaved people? In this podcast episode, historian Shaun Wallace speaks to HistoryExtra podcast editor, Ellie Cawthorne, about his work on the Fugitive Slave Database, which uses newspaper adverts for fugitive enslaved people from the American South to reconstruct the stories of those who escaped from slavery Do we need to decolonise history? And if so, how? In 2019, the Duchess of Sussex, Meghan Markle, expressed shock at figures showing the underrepresentation of ethnicity in professor positions in universities and encouraged scholars to “open up the conversation” about the curriculum. But what is decolonising history all about? How do we go about doing it – and do we actually need to? We asked 10 experts for their views The American Civil War: everything you wanted to know (podcast) Historian Adam IP Smith answers key questions about the conflict between the Union and the Confederacy that devastated America in the 1860s To read more about Juneteenth, visit the National Museum of African American History and Culture, which is devoted exclusively to the documentation of African American life, history, and culture