Lady Nelson Mistreating Josiah?

[histfan71]

In the course of my research I came across the following line in one of Nelson's letters in 1801 to Lady Hamilton. The letter was published in "The Letters of Lord Nelson to Lady Hamilton." Nelson was telling Lady Hamilton that he will not go to vist his father because Lady Nelson was going to be there, and he was afraid that he would get into an arguement with his wife in front of his family. The line is:

"If I once begin, you know, it will all out, about her, and her ill-treatment to her son."

Does anyone know what Lady Nelson might to have done to Josiah to deserve such an accusation? Or is perhaps Nelson trying to justify his own mistreatment of his wife?

[PMarione]

EH was hysteric when it was question of Fanny and we can assume that if HN "didn't know what fear is" when it came to board an enemy ship, he certainly had learn to fear the tantrums of EH.

According to Hardy's Frances, Lady Nelson, in March 1801 HN had obtained the Thalia for Josiah.
Worth to read her chapter on the Marriage Breakdown and the Davison's Letters.

From what I remember, FN was always a good mother.

@+P

[PMarione]

I found a small biography of Josiah: Richard Kerr-Nesbitt, Josiah Nisbet, Royal Navy 1793-1800, Nisbet Societ, Australia, 1990, ISBN: 0 646 00127 2

For the period you refer to:

[histfan71]

Interesting, but it is looking more and more that Nelson was looking for an excuse to justify his treatment of Lady N. Nelson wanted his letters to be widely published, so no doubt he was hoping that his version of the breakdown of their marriage would be believed.

[alexlitandem]

Histfan,

On what basis do you claim it is " looking more and more that Nelson was looking for an excuse to justify his treatment of Lady N." ?

From what, of that that has been posted above, do you conclude that it is looking more and more- rather than less and less, for example - that HN was seeking to `justify' ( as opposed, say, to revealing the reasons underlying ) his `treatment' of Fanny?

Just interested in your comment in response to Patrick's. "Interesting but..."

Are you firming up on that view less because of anything posted above, perhaps, and more because no-one here at least has posted anything substantive or even anecdotal to chime with the notion of FH `mistreating' Joshua.

I'd wondered - total speculation - whether the use of the term `mistreatment' could have been used by HN to refer to Fanny's over-indulgence of Joshua in some way, what we'd call `spoiling the child'? But, I admit, that does seem to require a significant distortion of the normal meaning of `mistreated'.

But then again, and still conjecturing, does it chime - really - that HN would actually blatantly lie about Fanny and specifically do so in making false accusations about her `mistreatment' of her son? There is something inherently odd for me in that notion, even allowing for the Emma as Hypnotist scenarios.

I haven't had much time to browse on this or other matters recently - but I will try to get back to the bookshelves again and see if I can stumble on anything to help.

[histfan71]

Hi Alex,

My conclusion is based on my research so far. I have read all seven volumes of Nicolas; all of Naish, and all of "The Letters of Lord Nelson to Lady Hamilton;" as well as Colin White's "The Wife's Tale." In all of Nelson's voluminous correspondence, that was the one and only time Nelson ever said anything about Fanny treating Josiah poorly.

You made an excellent point about the meaning of "mistreatment." People used the language differently in Nelson's time, and perhaps the word "mistreatment" had a totally different meaning to Nelson than it does to us. I try to judge Nelson based on the standards of his own time, and not on the standards of ours. I really try to do justice to Nelson in my thesis; I am not seeking to assassinate his character, but like all of us Nelson did have a dark side.

I don't think that Nelson was influenced by Emma to write that line. I think that he knew people would speculate why he left Fanny, so he wanted to give a plausible excuse, and an excuse that would absolve him of any blame in the breakup of his marriage.

[alexlitandem]

HistF,

Have spent some time today reviewing various materials - none of which you have overlooked - and have a number of hopefully constructive observations to share over the next couple of days or so, as soon as I can get a little clear time.

I know you cannot share a `thesis' in a few posts here! And, thus, you necessarily paraphrase / sound-bite various thoughts and arguments. so, please, do understand that in my next post I'm not be setting out to dispute with you for the heck of it; but, I do want to offer one or two thoughts to `challenge' ( maybe) one or two of yours, but in a positively supportive way.

I will also - not to distract from this thread but hopefully to specifically complement it - be posing a question to readers here ( and to those readers of related Nelsonian boards) triggered by one of your earlier remarks.

What kind of timeframe are you working to btw? When do you submit?

best,

alexli

[histfan71]

Hi Again Alex,

Please offer all the critisim you want. I appreciate any and all feedback because it can only help me make my arguement stronger and more persuasive.

I have to submit my thesis by June 20. It is pretty much already written in full, I am just tweaking and polishing right now.

[PMarione]

HistF,

I find your argument a little thin if it's not sustained by other examples: only one quote from a letter to EH not Fanny.

The relation between HN and Josiah was ambiguous.
One knows that HN was found of children (probably a major reason for his breakdown with Fanny) and he was a wonderful stepfather probably spioling the brat.
On the other hand, Josiah was a good stepson and saved his life at Santa Cruz.

A kind of rupture came with the Neapolitan episode: Josiah (a captain at 20) had a crush for EH, the affair between her and her mother's husband was very painful for him. Heavy drinking, gambling, whoring obliged HN to distance himself from him but he certainly had a heavy complex of culpability because he was himself far from a paternal figure at the time.

But for me you are a long way to proof that HN tried to transfer that complex on the shoulders of Fanny.
As you point "mistreatment" was applied to far minor offences then (see what fuss he could do for a mislaid pair of socks) like the concept of "honour" was something far more fragile than today to the point that they had to carry a sword everywhere to protect it.

@+P

[alexlitandem]

HistF,

Just a few observations on the Joshua issue.

a) You note above that “Nelson wanted his letters to be widely published, so no doubt he was hoping that his version of the breakdown of their marriage would be believed.”

I immediately want to challenge you on that observation in relation to the letter in question and in relation to HN’s letters to EH more generally.

b) It is certainly true to state that Nelson was a self-publicist when it suited his purposes to be so; and, further, I’d agree with you that a number of his letters seem almost blatant in their `nudge nudge, wink wink’ tone, virtually inviting the recipient to `pass this on…’ as it were.

c) As Marianne Czisnik observes in `Horatio Nelson – A controversial hero’’, “ In 1958 Oliver Warner made a fresh attempt to explore Nelson’s vanity by cautiously hinting at the possible element of self-publicity in Nelson’s character. Quoting the following note by Nelson in a letter to his wife, `I find it good to serve near home; there a man’s fag and services are easily seen – next to that is writing a famous account of your own actions’, Warner remarked `This aside is one of the more notable glimpses of a nature which saw in action the material for glowing representation’.”

d) [I would interject my own aside here merely to observe that Nelson’s `actions’, as a matter of fact rather than hyperbole, judged both by the standards of his time and of much later, calm, analysis, were indeed `the material for glowing representation’: the actions were stunningly exceptional and, ultimately, world-changing!]

e) Marianne Czisnik continues thus: “ In 1995 Roger Morris claimed that `By the time of Trafalgar, Nelson’s reputation was what he had made it.’ This assessment ignores the fact that what made Nelson famous, the Battle of the Nile, triggered off such a wave of public response that Nelson could hardly have increased or influenced it by any self-publicity of his own. Indeed, he was far from the sources of publicity and he actually did not take the initiative in creating this public response.”

f) Let’s, however, concede that Nelson was adept in the Black Arts of Self-PR!

Let’s further concede that he knew how `the system’ worked, in both the Naval and, to a lesser extent, the broader `political’ arena (He was surely not alone in that?).

g) Let’s concede, for the moment, Nelson’s vanity?

h) All of which is `a million miles away’ from conceding a number of other key `issues’.

i) More specifically, whilst Nelson may indeed have been adept at writing to key figures in Government, the Admiralty, `Society’ etc., with one eye – as it were – on the idea that his comments would thereafter be more widely circulated by the original recipient of his missive, I have always understood that his letters to Emma Hamilton were predicated on his belief and express wish that they would be destroyed, as he destroyed Emma’s own letters to him.

j) Of itself, that wish, that understanding, on HN’s part, is a very specific and important point given your own earlier assertion that ”Nelson wanted his letters to be widely published, so no doubt he was hoping that his version of the breakdown of their marriage would be believed.”

k) [Question: where do we find express reference by Nelson, to Emma, clearly articulating his wish that she destroy his letters to her?]

l) Secondly, you personally note that the `line’ in question from the 1801 letter you quote is the ONLY reference you can find by HN to Fanny’s `mistreatment’ of Joshua.

Think about that for a second.

One line – never repeated, never expanded upon, never echoed in all of HN’s many other letters, not only to Emma but to anyone? Hardly to be considered as `his version’ of why `the marriage had broken down’, surely? Just NOT plausible. It does not fly.

m) Not only does it `not fly’, the simple fact that the line, let alone the letter, never surfaced until 1814 does not sit happily with any conscious wish or attempt on HN’s ( or even EH's) part to fuel or to encourage the hope, as you put it, “that his version of the breakdown of their marriage would be believed.” He never gave a version. Not in writing.

n) What is of additional concern, to me, is that – to this point, [but, of course, I stand happily ready to be refuted and my ignorance corrected] - I am simply not aware of any other single reference in HN’s own letters to anyone, Davison included, Emma included, to ANYONE, making even the slightest negative reference to Fanny (in the sense of `blaming’ her for the breakdown of the marriage).

o) Not one accusation – not even to Emma!

p) [Question: have you found one? One? If not, then the solitary line from the 1801 letter hardly constitutes an assault on Fanny’s character designed to convince posterity of her failings.]

q) The timing of this letter is, it seems to me, important for any analysis of its meaning and import. EH’s pregnancy and first child, death of ET Parker and HN distracted with grief…a genuine reluctance to face the implied criticism of an aging and much loved – certainly revered – father etc., etc.,

r) Bottom line: 1. EH never wished Emma to go public on this `line’, 2. It is not repeated anywhere else in his letters. 3. He had no intention of justifying to ANYONE, then or ever, his relationship with Emma. 4. In fact, I believe one could demonstrate simply from HN’s own letters, that HN totally believed that his relationship with EH was pure in the eyes of his God. 5. This was not an attempt to exculpate himself from blame for the breakdown of the marriage. He did not feel blame! Regret? Maybe. He was not wilfully cruel, ca we agree on that?

So...

It is your `more and more likely' that I feel you have not come close to supporting.

[histfan71]

Thank you both for your feedback. It has been very helpful. Hopefully I will have some responses to your questions this weekend or perhaps the next.

[PMarione]

We hope to be able to read your work here when you have had your degree if university regulations allow it.

@+P

[alexlitandem]

Histfan:

"This weekend... or next ".

Help us here?

How did you respond to the observations made? How, if at all, has your thinking changed? Etc.,

Bring us all up2 speed, if poss?

Have you found any other plausible evidence to support or counter any suggestion that Fanny ever treated JN badly? We'd love to hear more.