From the death (or more rarely, resignation) of a pope to the famous white smoke drifting out of a Sistine Chapel chimney, the centuries-old process of electing a new pope is defined by ritual and ceremony, but also secrecy.
Taking place behind closed doors, it falls to an assembly of cardinals – a conclave – to vote for the new head of the Catholic Church.
The death of a pope has to be confirmed by a medic, but it is only official once a particular action is taken by the camerlengo – the cardinal who oversees the running of the Vatican’s property and revenue.
The camerlengo calls out the pope’s baptismal name three times and only when he receives no response can he declare the death.
Traditionally, the camerlengo have also tapped the pontiff’s head with a silver hammer. He then notifies both senior church officials and the general public.
The pope’s apartment will be locked – according to a historic practice that prevented looting – and preparations are made for the symbolic destruction of the pope’s ring and seal, signalling the end of his authority.
The pope must be buried between four and six days after the death, while the official period of mourning is observed for nine days. Not long after that, the cardinals gather for the conclave.
A conclave is the gathering of cardinals summoned to the Vatican to elect a new pope.
Not all members of the College of Cardinals, the most senior clergy of the Catholic Church below the papacy itself, are eligible to participate due to age restrictions.
[image id="277217" size="landscape_thumbnail" title="A procession of cardinals file into the Vatican (Photo via Getty)" alt="A procession of cardinals file into the Vatican" classes=""] A procession of cardinals file into the Vatican (Photo via Getty)The word derives from the Latin for ‘with a key’, referring to how the cardinals are literally shut away from the wider world while they vote.
Conclaves nearly always take place in the event of a pope’s death. Since Gregory XII in 1415, there has only been one papal resignation: Benedict XVI, who, in 2013, left the Holy See citing his advanced age.
The conclave is held in the highest secrecy, well away from public glare and with the cardinals isolated from any potential external influence. Even the two non-cardinal masters of ceremonies must leave before voting commences.
For the entire duration of the conclave, the assembled cardinals must remain in a sealed-off section of the Vatican.
They have no access to televisions, radios, newspapers or mobile phones, and must take – along with members of Vatican staff – an oath of secrecy, on threat of excommunication.
The process was brought to life in the 2024 film Conclave, helmed by All Quiet on the Western Front director Edward Berger and starring Ralph Fiennes and Stanley Tucci, and based on the bestselling novel by Robert Harris. It follows the workings of a fictional conclave – one filled with scandal and even-deeper secrets – but still helps us to see behind the doors of this peculiar and sometimes controversial procedure.
Not all cardinals are permitted to participate in a conclave. In November 2024, there were more than 230 members of the College of Cardinals around the world, but the maximum number of who can vote is 120. This goes back to 1975, when Paul VI changed the rules so that no cardinal over the age of 80 could be in a conclave.
The College of Cardinals have held the responsibility of electing a new pope since 1059, when the process was reformed by Nicholas II.
Prior to that, the pope, officially known as the Bishop of Rome, was most likely elected by local clergy and churchgoers, and often under the influence of the Roman emperors and then Holy Roman emperors.
In theory, any baptised male Catholic can become pope. In practice, however, the College of Cardinals always makes their choice from within their own number.
The last head of the Catholic Church who was not previously a cardinal was Urban VI, who was elected in 1378.
Of the 266 popes there have been to date, 217 were born in Italy. The remaining pontiffs have come from 14 other countries, mostly France (16). The only Englishman to head the Catholic Church was Adrian IV, who held the office from 1154-1159.
Once gathered from all around the world, the cardinals enter the Sistine Chapel. This is the venue for the conclave.
Nine cardinals are randomly selected for particular roles during the election: three ‘scrutineers’ count, check and announce the votes; three ‘infirmarii’ deliver the ballots of any cardinals whose ill health prevents them attending a round of voting; and three ‘revisers’ double-check the work of the scrutineers.
A round of voting, or scrutiny, consists of two masters of ceremony distributing paper ballots. They and the other handful of non-cardinals permitted in the Sistine Chapel must then exit.
[image id="284363" size="landscape_thumbnail" title="Cardinals, dressed in white, vote in the Sistine Chapel during the papal election of 1978 (Photo via Getty)" alt="Cardinals dressed in white sit in rows in the Sistine Chapel" classes=""] Cardinals, dressed in white, vote in the Sistine Chapel during the papal election of 1978 (Photo via Getty)Each cardinal writes the name of their preferred candidate on their ballot, disguising their handwriting, and folds the paper twice, before walking to the chapel’s altar, placing it on a paten (a plate used during the Mass) and sliding it into a chalice. As they do so, they declare, “I call as my witness Christ the Lord who will be my judge that my vote is given to the one before God I think should be elected”.
The collated ballots are examined one by one by the scrutineers, one whom reads the name on each ballot out loud and another pierces them with a needle to attach them onto a single thread. They are counted to see if any candidate has received the required two-thirds share of the vote.
If no one achieves this majority, further rounds of voting will continue until there is a new pope. After a single vote on the first day, there can be four ballots per day. It is forbidden for a cardinal to openly campaign, but discussions in between rounds can assist particular candidates in building support.
Finally, the ballots from a failed scrutiny are burned, giving off black smoke to let those outside the Sistine Chapel know that the conclave continues.
[image id="284364" size="landscape_thumbnail" title="White smoke from the Vatican let's the outside world know that a new pope has been chosen (Photo via Getty)" alt="A statue in the foreground, a chimney emitting white smoke in the background" classes=""] White smoke from the Vatican let’s the outside world know that a new pope has been chosen (Photo via Getty)A conclave will last as long as necessary to secure the election of a new pope. During the last century, the quickest came in 1939 when Pius XII was elected in the third ballot (although the fact that the College of Cardinals only consisted of 62 eligible voters presumably helped the swiftness of the process).
The longest conclave in history was held in 1268; or, at least, it began in 1268. Political infighting meant there was no result for nearly three years.
During that time, three cardinals died and frustrations reached such a level that the local magistrate removed the roof where the conclave was being held and limited the cardinals to bread and water to force them to agree on a decision.
Smoke emanating from the Sistine Chapel chimney is still the first way that announcements from the conclave are made. While black smoke means a failed vote, white smoke means there is a new pope. The different colours are achieved by burning certain chemical mixtures. This is followed by the ringing of the bells of St Peter’s Basilica.
Meanwhile, the candidate with the two-thirds majority must formally accept the result of the election. They will then select their papal name, before preparations are made for them to appear on the St Peter’s Basilica balcony for his first blessing.
The 13th-century conclave that lasted nearly three years was far from the only time that a papal election did not go to plan.
The election of 1378 was accompanied by rioting in Rome from those calling for the new pope to be Italian. They were concerned that most of the cardinals were French. Although Urban VI was elected, there was a split in the Church – the Western Schism – which saw two popes: one in Rome and the other in Avignon.
Further civil discord erupted during the conclave of 1559, with protests against one of the strongest candidates after it was revealed he had fathered a son. The election took almost four months before Pius IV became the new pope. That was despite the fact that he had children of his own; he successfully kept their existence a secret.
]]>Watching the news on Elon Musk’s SpaceX project to make humanity a “multi-planetary species” beginning with a colony on Mars, I found myself reflecting on an earlier moment in history. Between 1405 and 1433, the Chinese sent seven great missions to south-east Asia and across the Indian Ocean, visiting the Persian Gulf, India and east Africa. The first fleet alone comprised many dozens of ships and more than 27,000 men.
Admiral Zheng He’s fleets included the biggest wooden vessels yet built, dwarfing the tiny ships that later carried Columbus and Magellan. Modern theories that such Ming ‘treasure ships’ could have exceeded 400 feet (122 metres) in length, however, are now rejected by experts; the size of wooden ships was always limited by the length of trees available for the keel.
For sailing in heavy seas, a single, strongly protected, scarf-jointed keel is the most that shipwrights judge acceptable for safety. According to today’s traditional ship- builders in Fujian, this would allow a boat in Chinese junk style to be at most 200–240 feet (61–73 metres) long. These vessels were highly seaworthy: between 1846 and 1848, a traditional Chinese junk, the Keying, sailed to the US and Britain, where it was visited by Queen Victoria.
Why Emperor Yongle commanded this enormous expenditure of resources is still the subject of much controversy. Today in China, these journeys are characterised as peaceable missions to display the flag, encourage trade and wield Chinese soft power. But the idea that Zheng He’s expeditions were done for no real political, economic or practical gain seems, on the face of it, unlikely.
These routes had long been travelled by Arab navigators, and the Chinese had first visited east Africa as early as the Tang dynasty (AD 618–907). In some places, such as the Strait of Malacca, there was a deliberate effort to develop commercial entrepots. For example, Palembang, in south Sumatra, became an important Chinese trading post and a base for journeys into the Indian Ocean. Zheng He’s voyages, then, were to advertise Chinese power, exact tribute, open up new trade routes and, in particular, to get the states of south-east Asia to acknowledge the power and majesty of the Ming.
When they had to, they engaged in warfare, destroying pirate fleets near Palembang and intervening in civil wars to establish friendly regimes in Sumatra and what’s now Sri Lanka. So though they were not trying to colonise or conquer, their goal was to establish a network of control between China and the Indian Ocean over peoples who, in Zheng He’s words, “resisted the transforming influence of Chinese culture”. To create trading relations mutually beneficial to China and its various tributary states and kingdoms, “the sea routes were cleaned up and made peaceful so the natives were able to pursue their vocations in peace”.
At that moment, with its technological lead over Europe, China seemed poised to dominate much of the world. In 1433, however, the voyages were abruptly stopped and the fleets broken up. In a memorable advert for the aerospace company Lockheed in the 1980s, that decision was compared to giving up the moon programme after Apollo 8. Though the greatest scientific inventors of the pre-modern world, the Chinese were dismissed as lacking the desire to push the bounds of knowledge.
But that is to misunderstand the concerns of traditional Chinese civilisation. There were two key reasons for stopping the voyages. First was the enormous expense, including inevitable losses at sea. But there was something else. The ruling Confucian ethic was the cultivation of the Middle Kingdom, not the conquest or domination of other peoples. As Matteo Ricci – a Jesuit in the Ming court – observed, it was the Europeans, not the Chinese, who were “consumed with the idea of supreme domination… always covetous of what others enjoy”.
So when I hear the SpaceX plans, I think of Zheng He. Curiosity and scientific interest no doubt will drive human beings to the uninhabitable wastes of Mars, if only to harvest its rare earth metals. But beyond? Is Musk right to think that humanity can become a multi-world species? The facts, as I understand them, are completely against it. The distances are too vast for humanity to travel to other habitable systems, even if they exist.
Our fate is on our planet – and here our efforts should be redoubled in this time of crisis. Confucius, I’m sure, would agree.
This column was first published in the April 2025 issue of BBC History Magazine
]]>According to enduring legend, blood is shed at the birth of the city of Rome
For the citizens of imperial Rome, the festival of the Parilia, which took place every year on 21 April, was always a jolly occasion, complete with all sorts of sacrificing and feasting. For, as everybody knew, this was the city’s birthday, the anniversary of Rome’s establishment by Romulus in the year 753 BC.
Even at the time, there were several different versions of the story of Rome’s foundation. In the most common, Romulus and Remus were the twin sons of the princess Rhea Silvia and the god Mars, who were abandoned by the river Tiber and suckled by a she-wolf. Later, as adults, they returned to the riverbank to found a city of their own. According to legend, the two brothers could not agree on the precise spot on which to start work. In one version, Romulus went ahead and ploughed a furrow around the Palatine Hill to show where the walls should be. When Remus mockingly leaped over the walls to demonstrate their inadequacy, his brother angrily struck him down. “So perish anyone else,” he supposedly said, “who shall leap over my walls.” So that was the end of Remus, leaving the solitary Romulus as the undisputed first king of the new city on the Palatine.
Was it true? “Pure myth,” writes classicist Mary Beard, who argues that “there was almost certainly no such thing as a founding moment of the city of Rome.” Even Romulus probably never existed; he was an invention, projected backwards in time, while the story of his feud with Remus probably reflected Rome’s history of bloody civil war. But the Romans themselves undoubtedly took it seriously. After all, who can resist a birthday party? | Written by Dominic Sandbrook
Peter Abelard, scholar, theologian, opponent of Bernard of Clairvaux and doomed lover of Heloise died at Chalon-sur-Saone. His burial place is disputed but some claim he is buried with his lover in the Père Lachaise cemetery in Paris.
Afflicted with tuberculosis, Henry VII of England dies at his new palace in Richmond, Surrey at the age of 52. The news of his death is suppressed for two days while those around him secure their positions and prepare for the accession of his son, Henry VIII. | Read more about the decline and death of Henry VIII
Royalist commander Prince Rupert recaptured Lichfield from the parliamentarians after blowing up a section of the walls of the Cathedral Close. This was the first time that gunpowder had been used for such a purpose in England.
Alexander Douglas patents the bustle in the USA.
Birth in Cockpen, Edinburgh, of traveller and gardener Isabella (Ella) Christie. She travelled widely in Asia, made two notable trips to Russian Turkestan in 1910 and 1912, and was the first British woman to visit the state of Khiva.
During the First World War, the Red Baron, German fighter ace Manfred von Richthofen, is shot down and killed by ground fire over Allied lines at Morlancourt Ridge near the Somme.
The Daily Mail ‘proves’ the existence of the Loch Ness Monster with a sensational front page photograph
Even by the standards of the Daily Mail, its front page on 21 April 1934 was a sensation. ‘London Surgeon’s Photo of the Monster’ read the headline. Below, a black-and-white image showed the long neck and head of a dinosaur-like monster, emerging from the waters. The picture’s source could hardly have been more respectable: the London society gynaecologist Robert Kenneth Wilson. Now there could be no doubt: the Loch Ness Monster was real.
Although the legend of a monster dates back to the sixth century, the Loch Ness Monster was really an invention of the 1930s, when a series of witnesses claimed to have seen a creature in the loch. So in December 1933, the Mail sent a big-game hunter, Marmaduke Wetherell, to locate the creature. He duly found some huge footprints on the shore. ‘Monster of Loch Ness is Not Legend But a Fact’ screamed the headline. But when the Mail asked experts from the Natural History Museum to examine the prints, they reported that they had probably been created by the foot of a dead hippopotamus that had been converted into an umbrella stand.
The ‘surgeon’s photograph’, then, could hardly have been better timed. But was the timing suspicious? Indeed it was. Decades later, Wetherell’s stepson confessed that he and his father had made the ‘monster’ from a toy submarine, and used Wilson as a go-between to lend authenticity. “We’ll give them their monster,” Wetherell reportedly said. And, fake or not, the result was one of the most famous photographs in history. | Written by Dominic Sandbrook
Brasilia was inaugurated as the capital of Brazil. The city was built from scratch in the centre of the country with Oscar Niemeyer as the principal architect.
Edward Winslow, the future Mayflower pilgrim leader and governor of Plymouth Colony, left the King’s School, Worcester, where he had studied for five years.
The angry leader takes an armed force into the House of Commons and drives out all the MPs
On the morning of 20 April 1653, Oliver Cromwell took his seat, as usual, in the House of Commons. The Rump Parliament, as it was known, was supposed to have been only a caretaker legislature, paving the way for godly reform and a permanent political settlement after the execution of King Charles I. But instead of meekly complying with the New Model Army’s demands, MPs showed themselves rather more interested in defending their own privileges. And by 20 April, Cromwell’s patience had run out.
For a little while he listened grimly to his colleagues’ speeches. But then he cracked. “You have sat too long for any good you have been doing lately,” he shouted bitterly. “Depart, I say; and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!” At that, he went outside and returned with a troop of musketeers, whom he ordered to clear the chamber. According to one account: “He told Sir Henry Vane he was a jugler; Henry Martin and Sir Peter Wentworth, that they were whoremasters; Thomas Chaloner, he was a drunkard; and Allen the Goldsmith that he cheated the publick.” Then he gestured angrily at the mace, the symbol of parliamentary power, and said dismissively: “Take away that Fool’s Bauble”.
When Cromwell’s troops had cleared the room, the doors were shut. The Rump was dissolved. Cromwell, shortly to become lord protector, was now the undisputed master of Britain. Later, a wag posted a notice on the door: “This house is to be let; now unfurnished”. | Written by Dominic Sandbrook
Admiral Robert Blake destroys a Spanish fleet at Santa Cruz, Tenerife.
Birth of Prince Louis-Napoleon Bonaparte. Son of Napoleon I’s brother, Louis, and Hortense de Beauharnais daughter of Napoleon’s first wife, Josephine, from her first marriage), he becomes Emperor in 1852, styling himself Napoleon III. | Read more about Napoleon Bonaparte
Patrick Brönte, his wife Maria and their six children moved to Haworth Parsonage in West Yorkshire. Jane Eyre, Wuthering Heights, and Agnes Grey were all written there. | Read more about the Brönte sisters
Louis Pasteur and Claude Bernard completed their first test of what became known as the pasteurisation process to preserve food.
Adolf Hitler is born in the Austrian town of Branau-am-Inn, near the German border where his 51-year-old father works as a customs official.
Lasting from the ninth century BC right up until Roman conquest in the first century BC, the Etruscans were a powerful ancient civilisation who inhabited Etruria in ancient Italy, and rubbed shoulders with the other iconic ancient cultures of their day. Often painted as a mysterious people whose culture has now largely vanished from view, researcher Lucy Shipley instead presents us with a very different picture. Speaking to Emily Briffett, she delves into the archaeological and written records to bring us closer to this fascinating civilisation – and uncover why it captivated the likes of the Medici, DH Lawrence and the Roman emperor Claudius.
Lucy Shipley is the author of The Etruscans: Lost Civilizations (Reaktion Books, 2017).
]]>Thousands of people lined the streets of Edinburgh in October 1939 hoping to catch a glimpse of the day’s big event. Finally, the sound of an RAF pipe band could be heard, and a slow-moving funeral cortege came into view. Once safely inside the city’s Portobello Cemetery, a military chaplain gave a poignant eulogy to the assembled crowd, and local dignitaries laid wreaths for “two brave airmen”.
Although rarely on this scale, such scenes were repeated time and again during the Second World War. What marked this ceremony out as somewhat different, however, was that the flags on the coffins were not Union Jacks, but Nazi swastikas. The mourners in the Scottish capital were well aware of this. After all, they had come to witness the burial of two Germans killed in a battle over the Firth of Forth five days earlier.
International law stated the enemy needed to be “honourably buried”, but a grand military funeral was never a part of the deal. If it was not a question of legality, then, what had encouraged such fanfare in Edinburgh?
[image id="284167" size="landscape_thumbnail" title="Paying respect at the British Military Cemetery in Hamburg in 1957, a site where more than 2,500 Commonwealth troops are buried. (Photo by Getty Images)" alt="Paying respect at the British Military Cemetery in Hamburg in 1957, a site where more than 2,500 Commonwealth troops are buried." classes=""] Paying respect at the British Military Cemetery in Hamburg in 1957, a site where more than 2,500 Commonwealth troops are buried. (Photo by Getty Images)The real motive, it seems, was to be found over in Nazi Germany. During the first days of the conflict, several British airmen had lost their lives in a series of audacious RAF raids on Germany’s North Sea ports. Determined to showcase an honourable side, the Nazi regime staged its own elaborate funerals in the coastal town of Wilelmshaven, Lower Saxony. A naval band, floral tributes and military pallbearers were all present as the British dead were laid to rest. After the Germans had thrown down this mortuary gauntlet, the British clearly decided they had little option but to follow suit.
These funerals shed light on an important, though largely overlooked, aspect of the two world wars: the enemy dead. During both conflicts, enemy soldiers and civilians lost their lives on the British and German home fronts. Roughly 2,700 Germans died in First World War Britain and around 4,500 in the second conflict. When it came to British deaths in Germany, the numbers were even higher: 6,500 in the Great War and more than 25,000 from 1939–45.
Both societies have been very good at commemorating their own wartime losses. Such concerns have rarely stretched to the lives lost from the other side – perhaps for understandable reasons. Yet behind every enemy funeral and every enemy grave also lies a wider history of loss, grief and broken families.
During the Second World War, the majority of enemy deaths on the home front occurred in the air. The impressive funerals in Edinburgh and Wilhelmshaven were for airmen who were shot down in the skies over Britain and Germany. The balance of deaths in the First World War, however, where air combat played a much smaller role, was very different. In this earlier conflict, the largest number of enemy deaths occurred in PoW camps. But even then, given the vast size of the British and German camp networks, the numbers were still small.
Accidents, sickness and disease were the most common causes of mortality in PoW camps. One of those to suffer such a fate was 26-year-old Friedrich Borutta, a German prisoner originally from industrial Bochum. As a PoW, he ended up in Kinlochleven, a community just south of Ben Nevis. According to a Red Cross report, Borutta was “killed instantaneously” in October 1916, when he “was struck on [the] head by a portion of a hut” as a storm ripped through the Kinlochleven working camp. Some months later, in March 1917, another young German, Eugen Baumann, died in Middlesbrough. A lump of metal “the size of a man’s fist” struck his head while he was labouring away on a massive slag heap.
[image id="284174" size="landscape_thumbnail" title="The British and Commonwealth War Graves Cemetery in Berlin, where some of those who lost their lives in 1939–45 are buried." alt="The British and Commonwealth War Graves Cemetery in Berlin, where some of those who lost their lives in 1939–45 are buried." classes=""] The British and Commonwealth War Graves Cemetery in Berlin, where some of those who lost their lives in 1939–45 are buried.What proved even more deadly for PoWs in both countries was the global influenza pandemic of 1918–19. The tight confines of the camps offered the virus rich pickings. Yorkshire’s Skipton camp was among those to feel the full force of the disease: 47 men lost their lives in little more than three weeks.
Over in Germany, the influenza pandemic was also a killer, but so too were the poor sanitary conditions that reigned in many camps. One of the very worst places to be held was probably the Wittenberg camp, where typhus started to spread during the first half of 1915. But it was the German response, or lack of it, that caused the greatest problems.
Fearing they would become infected, the guards effectively abandoned the camp, only passing basic supplies through the border fence. At the peak of the typhus epidemic, the men were living in squalor, “alive with vermin” as a UK parliamentary committee reported. The “horrors of Wittenberg” left 60 British and 400 other PoWs dead.
Regardless of how the enemy died in the two world wars, the British and German authorities faced the same issue. With every death, they inherited another body that required some form of burial. One option was to create special cemeteries reserved solely for the enemy dead. However, this required time, effort and money, all of which were in short supply in wartime.
Nonetheless, a handful of new cemeteries were developed, including one in Wittenberg for the typhus victims. In Britain, new PoW burial grounds were built for the Stobs camp in the Scottish borders and the Park Hall camp near Oswestry, where a large memorial mound cast a watchful shadow over the 109 German graves.
A second option for the burial of enemy bodies – which became by far the most common approach – was to make use of existing cemeteries. After all, there seemed little reason to create a brand new burial ground if there was already plenty of space in nearby parish churchyards or in municipal cemeteries.
[image id="284177" size="landscape_thumbnail" title="Graves at German War Cemetery on Cannock Chase Staffordshire England UK where dead from First and Second World Wars are buried" alt="D6K9EM Graves at German War Cemetery on Cannock Chase Staffordshire England UK where dead from First and Second World Wars are buried" classes=""] Graves at the cemetery on Cannock Chase, Staffordshire. Nearly 5,000 German and Austrian dead from the First and Second World Wars are buried at the site. (Photo by Alamy)The recovery and burial of a German bomber crew who had lost their lives in Withyham, Sussex in 1941 was fairly typical of the process. The aircraft, a Heinkel He 111, was returning to base from a bombing raid over London when a British fighter attacked. Two crew members bailed out and another three died as the aircraft smashed into the ground.
Some “not identifiable” remains, as the police report put it, were pulled from the “burnt-out machine” and subsequently buried in Withyham parish churchyard. A fourth German – one of the men to have bailed out – died on the way to hospital in Tunbridge Wells and was then buried in the town’s municipal cemetery.
During the two world wars, the burial of the enemy in local cemeteries, such as Withyham and Tunbridge Wells, occurred time and again. Sometimes it was just the odd grave that appeared. In King’s Lynn, for example, the remains of Frank Zielenski, another victim of the influenza pandemic, lay quietly in the town’s main cemetery, surrounded by ordinary family graves. In other burial grounds, the enemy had a much greater presence: Manchester’s Southern Cemetery contained 154 German dead from the First World War, later joined by eight servicemen from the Second.
After the two conflicts, more than 700 different British cemeteries contained enemy graves. There is no accurate number for Germany, but given the scale of death, the numbers must have been even greater.
Eighteen-year-old Donald Stephens died in Landshut, north of Munich in September 1918, a matter of weeks before the end of the war. Buried in the town’s wooded cemetery, Stephens rested inconspicuously alongside German family graves. He was far from alone: fallen British soldiers lay scattered in hundreds of cemeteries in the heart of local German communities.
Coming face to face with a dead enemy was certainly less threatening than confronting a live one. Perhaps for this reason, local people rarely put up too much of a fuss when their vanquished foe was carried to the grave in their own communities. One Dorset woman watching the burial of a German PoW in First World War Dorchester captured the sentiment of many people. “I only hope that in Germany they treat our men as well and pay as much respect to those who die,” she shouted out as the coffin was carried to the grave.
However, not every funeral passed off without anger being expressed. The strongest complaints were generally reserved for airmen killed in bombing raids. In Potters Bar, Hertfordshire, according to a police report, the vicar found himself “threatened with a riot” after he agreed to the burial of “German murderers” in September 1916. The 15 men in question were the crew of a raiding German airship that had been shot down in flames in neighbouring Cuffley. Meanwhile, one Newcastle resident was so incensed at the scale of a German funeral held locally that he vented his anger in the press. “It is time we treated these men for what they are: cold blooded murderers,” he raged.
[image id="284173" size="landscape_thumbnail" title="The respect shown in Edinburgh may have been related to events in Wilhelmshaven when RAF men were shot down during a raid over Germany in September 1939. Here, a German naval dean delivers a speech at the funeral. (Photo by Alamy)" alt="The respect shown in Edinburgh may have been related to events in Wilhelmshaven when RAF men were shot down during a raid over Germany in September 1939. Here, a German naval dean delivers a speech at the funeral. (Photo by Alamy)" classes=""] The respect shown in Edinburgh may have been related to events in Wilhelmshaven when RAF men were shot down during a raid over Germany in September 1939. Here, a German naval dean delivers a speech at the funeral. (Photo by Alamy)As the Allied bombing of German urban areas intensified, any empathy with dead or dying enemy airmen also quickly faded. In Nazi Germany, people’s anger sometimes went far beyond a letter to the local newspaper. When a Lancaster bomber hit the ground in the tiny village of Schlalach, south of Potsdam, in 1943, there was very little left of the “badly burned” crew. Yet the attacks still continued. Some local workers took the corpses to the village churchyard, where they threw the bodies into a mass grave, imitating “the noise of falling bombs” as each body hit the ground.
In both 1918 and 1945, when the fighting finally stopped, wartime societies, militaries and economies were gradually demobilised. Yet, while the living could slowly return, the dead remained overseas, scattered in local cemeteries from Aldershot to York and Aachen to Xanten. But what was to happen to these enemy graves post-conflict? Unsurprisingly, many of the bereaved were desperate to have their loved ones’ bodies brought home.
Elizabeth Stark’s circumstances were particularly sad. In September 1918, her son James had succumbed to wounds while being held in Cologne. A few weeks later her husband also died. She then made it her mission to “get their boy’s body home” to Dundee. Despite years of campaigning, she eventually had to admit defeat. Her husband’s headstone in Scotland contains a dedication to their son, but his body remained in Germany.
While discussions over the possible repatriation of the enemy dead rumbled on, the graves themselves started to enjoy a second life. This came down to having a presence. People found it difficult to ignore the enemy, when their graves were still in the midst of communities. One Suffolk soldier, Willie Read, had perished in the influenza pandemic and lay buried in the town of Rüthen. A local farmer, who had employed Read, promised his family he would keep the grave “in proper condition”.
Sometimes, local people included the enemy in their early war commemorations. The 14 German dead in Birmingham’s Lodge Hill cemetery, for example, were treated the same as the neighbouring British war graves. On Armistice Day during the 1920s, wreaths were laid on both sets of graves. It was, the German embassy proclaimed somewhat optimistically, a “sign of the growing mutual understanding between the nations of Europe”.
With local communities taking such a close interest in the care of enemy graves, direct contact between the former foes often followed. One of the most poignant stories emerged on the south coast of England, where 11 German airmen of the Second World War lay buried in Poole’s Parkstone Cemetery. Frau Koch, the widow of Horst Gündel, one of those killed, made regular trips to the cemetery postwar. On one of these visits, she ended up in conversation with a local man. The pair kept in touch and a warm friendship developed. They exchanged letters and Christmas cards, arranged flowers for Gündel’s grave and their families stayed together on holiday.
Yet these warm relations were not to last. While the British and Germans were busy bonding over the enemy war graves, the authorities started to plot a very different future for the dead. Both sides eventually decided to move their graves from hundreds of scattered sites to a far smaller number of new military cemeteries, which gathered together the fallen on foreign soil.
On paper, there was a lot of logic to such plans. It brought each country’s dead together for the first time – and, of course, centralising the graves also cut down on maintenance costs. The knock-on effect, however, was that once the graves were gone, the bereaved no longer needed to visit communities that had once cared for the dead. And thus, these early relations slowly fizzled out.
The enemy graves vanished from the cemetery landscapes at different times. The British moved first, exhuming all their dead in Germany in two large waves, one in the mid-1920s and one in the late 1940s for the Second World War graves. These were massive operations. The exhumation teams often covered hundreds of miles in a day, moving tens of bodies each time. “With such enormous distances,” as one of the gravediggers later recalled, “our lives seemed to revolve round transport.”
[image id="284171" size="landscape_thumbnail" title="General Maximilian von Herff is among those whose remains lie at Cannock Chase. As head of the SS Personnel Main Office from 1942–45, he worked closely with Heinrich Himmler. (Photo by Alamy)" alt="General Maximilian von Herff is among those whose remains lie at Cannock Chase. As head of the SS Personnel Main Office from 1942–45, he worked closely with Heinrich Himmler. (Photo by Alamy)" classes=""] General Maximilian von Herff is among those whose remains lie at Cannock Chase. As head of the SS Personnel Main Office from 1942–45, he worked closely with Heinrich Himmler. (Photo by Alamy)Yet, while the British dead were gradually moved, there was no such progress with the scattered German graves. This was not for a lack of trying. The problem for successive German governments was that, as the vanquished power, they had less control of the graves in Britain. It was only in 1959 that the situation finally changed: a new international treaty gave the West German state permission to exhume all German graves on British soil.
The West Germans welcomed this development as a sign of rehabilitation. Of course, this rather overlooked the fact that many of the German dead had led anything but normal lives. On the one side were unsavoury characters such as Maximilian von Herff (1893–1945), a Waffen-SS general who had died after suffering a stroke while being held as a PoW in Cumbria. On the other side were the graves of refugees who had fled the Nazis and been interned, only then to lose their lives in wartime Britain.
Such complexities were of little concern when the gravediggers set to work. The Germans moved all of their dead to a new military cemetery on Cannock Chase in Staffordshire, matching the British who had developed four cemeteries for their First World dead (in Berlin Stahnsdorf, Cologne, Hamburg and Kassel), with 11 more added after the second conflict.
Today, the enemy dead lie quietly in these vast cemeteries, all beautifully tended by the British and German war graves commissions. Few now remember that the enemy graves were anywhere other than on Cannock Chase or in one of the British cemeteries on German soil. In Edinburgh, Poole or Wilhelmshaven, there is no longer any sign of the enemy. Their graves, now long gone, had once been a prompt for British-German reconciliation and a reminder of shared losses, even of crimes committed. Without the enemy in the way, the British and Germans have been free to concentrate on constructing national, rather than shared, narratives of the two world wars.
Tim Grady is professor of modern European history at the University of Chester and author of Burying the Enemy: The Story of Those Who Cared for the Dead in Two World Wars (Yale University Press)
This article was first published in the April 2025 issue of BBC History Magazine
]]>The Byzantine emperor Constantine VI is blinded and deposed by a coup organised by his own mother, Irene, who assumes power herself.
Ælfheah (or Alphege), archbishop of Canterbury, was killed at Greenwich by drunken Vikings after refusing to allow himself to be ransomed. According to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle the Vikings “pelted him with bones and the heads of cattle and one of them struck him on the head with the butt of an axe, so that with the blow he sank down and his holy blood fell on the earth…”
Robert II, King of Scots, died aged 74 at Dundonald Castle in Ayrshire after living in semi-retirement for the past six years.
Around 2,000 Jews massacred after dispute over holy vision
In spring 1506, Lisbon was not a happy place. After a long drought and a severe bout of plague, the Portuguese capital was in a febrile mood. And when an argument broke out at the convent of São Domingos de Lisboa, things quickly turned ugly.
The trigger came when, during a Sunday service, one worshipper declared he had seen the face of Jesus shining from the altar. Another man said that was rubbish: he had merely seen candlelight reflecting from the crucifix.
This second man was a New Christian – one of thousands of Jews who had fled west and converted to Catholicism after being expelled from Spain. Anti-Semitic resentment was already running high in Lisbon. And with the second man’s remarks, the dam broke.
A screaming crowd dragged him outside by the hair, beat him to death and set his body on fire. Then someone said they should round up and kill the other heretics too.
So began one of the worst pogroms in Portuguese history, as mobs roamed in search of Jews. “They burnt them in the streets of the city for three days on end,” wrote one observer, “till the bodies were consumed and became ashes.” Babies were dashed against the wall.
It was not until Tuesday that the king’s troops managed to restore order. By then, some 2,000 people had been massacred. The chief perpetrators were hanged, but the damage had already been done. | Written by Dominic Sandbrook
With no clear male heir, the Holy Roman Emperor Charles VI issues the Pragmatic Sanction so his lands can pass to a woman. He’s succeeded by his daughter Maria Theresa in 1740 – though she still has to fight against her neighbours first.
Giovanni Antonio Canal –’Canaletto’ – dies in Venice aged 70. Famous for his landscapes of Venice, he was popular with English collectors. In 1746 he moved to England and painted there for a decade before returning to the city of his birth.
The Reverend James Hackman is hanged at Tyburn for the murder of Martha Ray, his former lover and the long-term mistress of John Montagu, Fourth Earl of Sandwich.
Politician, author and former prime minister Benjamin Disraeli, the 1st Earl of Beaconsfield, died in London, aged 76.
Birth in Norway of Ole Evinrude, the inventor of the outboard motor.
“A native of the planet of Mars” breathes new life into the declining town of Aurora
When the people of Dallas, Texas opened the local Morning News on 19 April 1897, they were in for a shock. “A Windmill Demolishes it”, read the headline on a story by one SE Haydon. Two days before, at six in the morning, an airship had fallen onto the little town of Aurora. “It sailed over the public square,” Haydon explained, “and when it reached the north part of town collided with the tower of Judge Proctor’s windmill and went to pieces with a terrific explosion.”
But the real surprise came in the wreckage. The dead pilot was badly burned, but it was clear “that he was not an inhabitant of this world”. Indeed, “Mr TJ Weems, the US signal service officer at this place, and an authority on astronomy, gives it as his opinion that he was a native of the planet Mars”.
The story of the Aurora crash (the ‘Texas Roswell’) has fascinated UFO-watchers ever since. In fact, it was almost certainly a hoax. Decades later, the former mayor of Aurora, Barbara Brammer, investigated the story and discovered that Haydon was actually a well-known local joker.
The truth is that Aurora was in trouble in the late 1890s. Boll weevils had destroyed the town’s cotton crop, while the residents had suffered the misfortunes of a major fire and an outbreak of spotted fever. Above all, plans for a rail link to Dallas had just been shelved.
“The town was dying,” one resident recalled years later. So Haydon decided to get them a little publicity. | Written by Dominic Sandbrook
A high-profile trial only serves to further the actor’s notoriety
For Mae West, the events of 19 April 1927 were a public-relations coup beyond price. A year earlier, the 33-year-old performer had launched her first play, Sex, at Daly’s 63rd Street Theatre in New York City. West herself played a prostitute, Margie La Monte, and as the title suggests, the treatment could hardly have been more risqué – at least by the standards of the time.
Not surprisingly, the city’s cultural conservatives hated it. By contrast, the public seemed delighted, and despite damning reviews and religious protests, demand for tickets was high. But then, in February 1927, the police raided the theatre, arrested the entire cast and charged West with obscenity.
For someone with West’s natural flair and eye for a photo opportunity, the ensuing trial was a wonderful chance to confirm her emerging notoriety. When she arrived at the Jefferson Market Courthouse on 19 April, she was in gloriously unrepentant form, much to the displeasure of the judge, George Donnellan, who fined her $500 and sentenced her to 10 days in jail.
West spent her first night at the women’s prison at the courthouse. In a scribbled note to reporters the next morning, she remarked that it had been “not so bad. The inmates were very interesting. Will have enough material for 10 shows. I didn’t think much of the bed.” West was then moved to Welfare Island, now Roosevelt Island, where she spent the next seven days. “Hello, Mae!” her fellow inmates shouted when she arrived. “Glad to see you!” | Written by Dominic Sandbrook
Beginning of the Warsaw Ghetto uprising as German police and SS forces, who had entered the ghetto in order to deport the remaining inhabitants, were ambushed by Jewish insurgents. It took the germans a month to quell the resistance.
The film-star enjoys two sumptuous ceremonies – but her reception is lukewarm
It was the ultimate fairytale wedding, so exciting they held it twice. For the Hollywood film-star Grace Kelly and her new husband, Prince Rainier of Monaco, one ceremony was not enough. First came the civil ceremony on 18 April 1956. But it was the religious occasion, at Saint Nicholas Cathedral the next day, that really caught the attention of the world’s press.
In fairness, it was a terrific story. Waiting at the altar was Rainier III, the dapper, chain-smoking monarch of Monaco, latest representative of the medieval Grimaldi dynasty, now presiding over one of the world’s fastest-growing tax havens. And walking down the aisle was one of the most beautiful and accomplished actresses on Earth, Grace Kelly, famous for High Noon, Rear Window and Dial M for Murder. Who could resist?
In most respects the wedding lived up to expectations. The bride – who had only met her husband a year earlier – wore a dress with 800,000 sequins and 1,500 precious stones, and the happy couple’s presents included a convertible black-and cream Rolls-Royce from the people of Monaco. The glitziest gift, though, was a yacht – all 147 feet of it – from the prince’s friend Aristotle Onassis.
But although the newspapers were beside themselves with excitement, the new Princess Grace’s subjects remained remarkably unmoved. “The promised crowds that were going to swamp Monaco have never appeared,” admitted the Manchester Guardian. “People did line the streets when, after the ceremony, the prince and princess drove round the town in an open car, but only a few deep… A few grandmothers from Nice or Genoa stood on tea chests, and young American tourists clicked away with cameras, but that was all. The crush was rather worse outside the post offices; these, for one day only, were selling special portrait stamps of the newly married couple. Almost a quiet wedding.” | Written by Dominic Sandbrook
On Christmas Eve 1808, a British army in Spain was marked for annihilation. For the past week, around 25,000 British soldiers had been skirmishing against elements of the French Grande Armée, and had got the better of their opponents during the series of small engagements. But now their commander, General Sir John Moore, ordered them to run away.
It was a tough pill to swallow for the proud British. The grumbling began almost immediately. “Why won’t Moore let us fight them?” was the cry heard by many a British officer from his men.
But Moore had the full picture and knew that even his tough little army could never hope to take on the masses of French troops storming towards him. Worse still, the dreaded Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte was at their head, eager to destroy the hated British.
For Napoleon, Spain was a backwater – a minor player in modern European politics. Yet it could not simply be ignored. Sharing a border with France made it an ideal staging post for British military expeditions aimed at bringing down his imperial rule, and so in the winter of 1808, Napoleon attempted to conquer Spain and eject the British army from the continent. Napoleon knew that making a terrible example of Moore’s force would further isolate his Spanish adversaries and bring their uncooperative junta government to heel.
The Peninsular War (1808-1814), a key part of the Napoleonic Wars, saw British, Spanish, and Portuguese forces fight against the invading First French Empire in the Iberian Peninsula, ultimately contributing to Napoleon’s downfall.
Sir John Moore was a veteran of several hard-fought campaigns in the Caribbean and Ireland. He had a deep love for the British army. Indeed, it is Moore’s humanity that shines through much of his personal correspondence. Historian Arthur Bryant described him as a man who held true to the belief that “the British soldier could be made perfect by evoking all that is finest in man – physical, mental and spiritual.”
Now as commander of His Majesty’s forces in Spain, Moore had just taken an almighty risk. By marching towards Madrid, he had brought the Grand Armée down upon him. As he had said before ordering the advance: “I mean to proceed bridle in hand, for if the bubble bursts, and Madrid falls, we shall have a run for it.”
[image id="284235" size="landscape_thumbnail" title="General Sir John Moore. (Photo by The Print Collector/Getty Images)" alt="General Sir John Moore. (Photo by The Print Collector/Getty Images)" classes=""] General Sir John Moore. (Photo by The Print Collector/Getty Images)But on Christmas Eve 1808, the bubble had well and truly burst. Now the army that Moore loved so much would flee.
In Spain, an old saying goes: large armies starve, and small ones get beaten. Napoleon, for all his might, could not afford to dally with his Grand Armée – especially in winter. Marshalling his forces in Madrid, he was convinced that Moore and his men were falling back on Lisbon. To that end, he directed his Imperial Guard and most of his other forces west towards the Portuguese border. Only at the last minute did intelligence reach him that the British were north of the Spanish capital.
Despite the failure of his normally excellent reconnaissance system, Bonaparte reacted with characteristic speed and ruthlessness, issuing new orders for the army to concentrate on Moore’s last reported position in a bid to overwhelm the comparatively puny British force.
As the British fell back, they began to suffer. Their supplies had not reached them, and they began to starve. Worse still, the relentless pace of the retreat caused many men to fall behind with exhaustion – making them easy prey for French cavalry. A retreating army is rarely a happy one, and a soldier was overheard grumbling that Moore wanted to “march [us] to death first and to fight after.”
The army marched at a frantic pace to Astorga and reached it on 29 December. Moore expected to find 25,000 Spanish regulars there. Instead, he found 9,000 Spaniards looking “more the appearance of a large body of peasants, driven from their homes, famished, and in want of every thing, than a regular army”. Worse still, fever was raging in the Spanish ranks, and most of the soldiers were already half-starved, making them appear like “spectres issuing from a hospital.”
Plans for defence were drawn up by the Spanish general in command, La Romana. Moore diplomatically looked them over, even though one British officer called them “wilder than the dreams of Don Quixote!” Over the next hours, all thoughts of making a joint stand at Astorga evaporated.
As at Dunkirk the following century, the British commanders realised they would have to cut and run to the sea, abandoning their allies to their fate. The army would make headlong for the Galician port of La Corunna, where the Royal Navy could evacuate them by sea.
All manner of equipment previously built up at Astorga had to be abandoned. This included food, weapons, and fresh shoes (despite a quarter of the men marching barefoot). The British army that left Astorga did so in extremely low spirits. In no mood to distinguish friend from foe, undisciplined bodies of redcoats began plundering the surrounding Spanish villages and before long, most of the battalions marched with an advanced guard of marauders bent on personal profit.
On their route north west, at Bembibre, there was widespread looting. British soldiers broke into the houses of locals in search of food, warm clothes, and alcohol. General Paget, riding through the town with the French hot on his heels, described the place as resembling the aftermath of a battle, with prostrate redcoats passed out in the streets. Attempts were made to force these men on but with little effect. French dragoons arrived almost as soon as the British cavalry rear-guard had left and began slashing into the drunken men, many of whom were incapable of defending themselves.
New Year’s Day saw most of the disintegrating British army reach Villafranca, where 14 days’ worth of stores and 100 barrels of rum were stockpiled. With no wagons to carry the supplies, Moore ordered the whole lot burnt. But some battalions in the army refused to obey, the men instead choosing to destroy the liquor by imbibing it.
Disorder in the town became so great that Moore (a man who detested even flogging) called the conduct “infamous beyond belief” and ordered one soldier to be shot in the town square. However, this did little to help matters. Captain Gordon of the cavalry remembered, “parties of drunken soldiers were committing all kinds of enormities, several houses were in flames. The gutters were overflowing with rum… and a promiscuous rabble were drinking and filling bottles in the street.” By the time the British left, according to Blakeney of the 28th, “the whole town seemed on fire.”
Elsewhere, events in the French empire diverted attention. Rumours of an anti-Bonapartist plot in Paris and the need to mobilise against Austria caused Napoleon to leave the pursuit of Moore to one of his most capable commanders – Marshal Soult. But the British did not yet have intelligence of this development that could mean salvation.
On 3 January, the oncoming French caught up with the rearguard at the bridge of Cacabelos. Half the 95th Rifles were placed forward of the bridge, while the remaining men held the British side of the river.
About one o’clock in the afternoon, the French cavalry vanguard appeared, led by the dashing young Brigadier Auguste François-Marie de Colbert-Chabanais. One of France’s rising military stars, Colbert was tipped for great things. Getting the drop on the British, his horsemen rode down two companies of the 95th, taking 40 prisoners and cutting others to pieces.
It was then that Colbert made a fatal mistake. Flushed with success, he ordered his men to gallop for the bridge, intending to charge the infantry on the other side.
Tom Plunkett was an Irish soldier fighting in the ranks of the 95th. As such, he carried a Baker rifle – a weapon which was accurate to 200 yards, far beyond the range of the muskets most soldiers carried. Described as “bold, fit, [and] athletic” Plunkett was a superb soldier save for his one Achilles’ heel – drink. One sergeant commented that he was “a noted pickle”. Nevertheless, in a failed expedition to South America in 1807, Plunkett had used his rifle to deadly effect in a skirmish against the Spanish (who were at the time allied with France). Standing up and taking careful aim, Plunkett “literally shot down every Spaniard who ventured to show himself”.
Now, at the Bridge of Cacabelos, Plunkett had just witnessed many of his comrades butchered. When he spotted the French general, he raced forward and threw himself down, placing the muzzle of his rifle across his legs and arching his head to aim. Colbert was still riding forward, attempting to marshal his men at the bridge. No doubt, he believed he was out of range of any British bullets.
Plunkett’s first shot hit Colbert in the chest, cartwheeling him off his mount. Colbert’s Trumpet Major bravely came up. In the meantime, Plunkett had reloaded at record speed. Just as the man knelt to render assistance to his commander, he too was hit. The general and his aide lay dead in the snow.
Various figures are given for the range of Plunkett’s sharpshooting. Estimates of 300-400 yards are not uncommon. Some popular literature even fixes it at an unbelievable 800 yards. But whatever the true range, Plunkett’s two shots were made against distant targets by a man whose hands must have been numb with cold, and all without the benefit of modern telescopic sights.
For all Plunkett’s achievements, in the days that followed, the situation of the army went from bad to catastrophic. As the lines of grumbling redcoats ascended the long climb to the plains of Lugo, the sky ominously darkened. Then it began to snow.
One eyewitness called the 15-mile ascent up Monte del Cebrero a “consummate scene of horrors”. There was no shelter and wounded soldiers were left in carts to perish.
[image id="284237" size="landscape_thumbnail" title="Death of Sir John Moore, La Coruna, Spain. Moore commanded the British forces at the battle of Corunna (La Coruna) during the Peninsular War. Retreating from a much larger French army commanded by Marshal Soult, the British were able to hold the French off long enough to be evacuated by sea. Moore was mortally wounded in the battle, and was buried at midnight in La Coruna Citadel. (Photo by Historica Graphica Collection/Heritage Images/Getty Images)" alt="Death of Sir John Moore, La Coruna, Spain. Moore commanded the British forces at the battle of Corunna (La Coruna) during the Peninsular War. Retreating from a much larger French army commanded by Marshal Soult, the British were able to hold the French off long enough to be evacuated by sea. Moore was mortally wounded in the battle, and was buried at midnight in La Coruna Citadel. (Photo by Historica Graphica Collection/Heritage Images/Getty Images)" classes=""] Sir John Moore commanded the British forces at the battle of Corunna (La Coruna) during the Peninsular War. Retreating from a much larger French army commanded by Marshal Soult, the British were able to hold the French off long enough to be evacuated by sea. Moore was mortally wounded in the battle, and was buried at midnight in La Coruna Citadel. (Photo by Historica Graphica Collection/Heritage Images/Getty Images)Everywhere were “wretched people who lay on all sides expiring, from fatigue and the severity of the cold… their bodies reddened in spots the white surface of the ground.”
The horses too were dying in huge numbers. Heavy rains caused many of the carcasses to swell and burst, leading one man on the retreat to complain that “the infected air hovers so rancorously about our heads, that it is almost impossible to pass in any direction without feeling violent convulsions of stomach”.
And still the retreat would continue at an even more frantic pace. On 5 January, Moore ordered the entire army to execute a 36-hour continuous forced march – news that put the fear of God into every man. As they slogged along, even soldiers who had kept their discipline to this point suffered. Steady old veterans on starvation rations could not keep up with the gruelling pace and began to straggle. Physician Adam Neale called these hours “this time of horrors”. Yet more sick and wounded men were simply left to freeze. One officer, with perfect British understatement, called it “that unpleasant march”.
Under such strain, the army that reached Lugo was something of a mob. Moore felt it necessary to issue a proclamation, appealing “to the honour and feelings of the army.” Read out to those in the ranks who were still alive and had bothered to turn up for parade, the speech was described by one British officer as “formidable yet pathetic”.
It took another few days to make Corunna. When the exhausted British army staggered into the city on the night of the 11th, their horrific ordeal was far from over. From the hills overlooking the port, they quickly realised that the transports they all longed for were nowhere in sight. In front was the open water of the Atlantic and a 500-mile swim back to England. Behind was Soult.
Corunna’s citizens were shocked at the appearance of the redcoats. Sick, emaciated, their clothes in rags, they cannot have been an encouraging sight. Some even made the sign of the cross as the wrecked men filed past.
In all, three weeks of hard marching had reduced Moore’s army to a shadow of its former self. He realised he had too few men to hold all the ridges south of town, so was forced to choose an imperfect position with an exposed right flank overlooked by higher ground. Soult quickly occupied that higher ground and dragged cannons up there.
But then the British caught a break – Soult felt he was too weak to mount an attack. The two armies eyeballed each other until the Royal Navy transports finally came into view late on 14 January. But it would take time to embark the whole British expeditionary force.
Moore now faced every commander’s worst nightmare – attempting a staged amphibious withdrawal in the face of a determined enemy. Soult, forced into action, pressed home an attack on the 15th, but it proved indecisive.
With part of his force already embarked, the remnants of Moore’s army faced the main French assault the following day.
[image id="284238" size="landscape_thumbnail" title="Sir John Moore lays mortally wounded. (Photo by Hulton Archive/Getty Images)" alt="Sir John Moore lays mortally wounded. (Photo by Hulton Archive/Getty Images)" classes=""] Sir John Moore lays mortally wounded. (Photo by Hulton Archive/Getty Images)On 16 January, the French threw a mass of soldiers against the British right flank, attempting to turn it and cut the rest of the army off from the ships. Moore ordered two battalions of Foot Guards into the melee. As the Guards advanced, the badly mauled Black Watch began to withdraw. Seeing this, Moore rode forward, personally rallying them. But on horseback in his bright scarlet full-dress uniform, he proved a highly conspicuous figure.
While leading the Scots forward, a French roundshot struck Moore in the shoulder, throwing him from his horse. Soldiers rushed to where he lay and were greeted with a grim sight. The ball had almost severed Moore’s left arm and torn his chest wide open, breaking his ribs and lacerating part of his lungs. Nevertheless, he was conscious and composed, appointing General Hope to command the army.
Confused fighting followed on the ridges, with the British managing to hold on until the French assaults died away in the early evening. The remaining redcoats embarked the following day, but not before performing a final duty to Moore. As the last troops were leaving the town, Moore’s body – wrapped in a military coat and blanket – was solemnly lowered into a newly dug grave at the bastion of the citadel amid the roar of a French bombardment.
The army that arrived back in England was shattered. One soldier commented that their appearance was “squalid and miserable in the extreme. There was scarcely a man amongst them, who had not lost some of his appointments, and many, owing to the horrors of that celebrated retreat, were even without rifles. Their clothing too was in tatters, and in such an absolute state of filth as to swarm with vermin.”
One soldier, Green of the 95th, simply stated that “Such a lot of rag-a-muffins never landed at Portsmouth before”.
The newspapers were quick to turn against the army, with the Times calling the whole campaign “a shameful disaster”. Returns for the sick certainly bore out this claim. The mortality rate for those who landed back in England was a terrifying 17 per cent, caused mostly by fever and the lingering effects of dysentery.
So what, if anything, did this deadly retreat achieve? It was Winston Churchill who said that wars are not won by evacuations. Yet if Moore had not made his initial move against the Grand Armée, Napoleon might have had the time and resources to crush the “Spanish Ulcer” before it became terminal for his empire. The cost was about 4,000 irreplaceable British soldiers, including Sir John Moore.
Wellington, perhaps Britain’s greatest general and a man who never issued praise lightly said after the war that “we’d not have won, I think, without him.”
Matthew Doherty is a military historian, writer and teacher
]]>At 5am on 19 April 1775, two groups of British subjects faced each other across the town common of Lexington, 11 miles north-west of Boston, Massachusetts. One group was composed of local inhabitants, militiamen who would fight as Patriots. The other was of red-coated British troops under the immediate command of Marine Major John Pitcairn. The militiamen were certainly not there by chance: the plans of General Gage, the British governor of Massachusetts, had been revealed to his opponents.
Simmering tensions over London’s repeated assertions of control over its American colonies, dating back to the 1760s, had brought the two sides to this point. After a tense standoff, the Redcoats and militiamen traded fire. At the end of this brief but fateful exchange, eight Patriots lay dead.
Major Pitcairn and his men were just the vanguard of a 1,500-strong force under the overall command of Lieutenant Colonel Francis Smith. The colonel had a clear mission that day: to seize Patriot-held cannon and munitions in nearby Concord, the main town in Middlesex County and the centre for mobilising the county militia regiments of 6,000 men. And so, shortly after the clash at Lexington, Smith’s Redcoats pushed on to Concord.
[image id="284311" size="landscape_thumbnail" title="British troops enter Concord, as shown in a 1775 engraving" alt="British troops enter Concord, as shown in a 1775 engraving" classes=""] British troops enter Concord, as shown in a 1775 engraving. Over the following hours, Patriots would inflict serious punishment on the Redcoats, only alleviated by the intervention of Brigadier Earl Percy. (Image by Getty Images)Hostilities were resumed at Concord’s North Bridge at around 9am, shortly after the British had undertaken a largely fruitless search for weaponry to the west of the town. The intensity of the engagement now increased: colonist numbers had grown to around 400, with the local men now joined from surrounding areas by militia that included the elite Minutemen, whose name reflected their timely readiness for action.
After both sides temporarily disengaged, Smith’s force reassembled in Concord itself and, at noon, continued along the road back to Boston. The retreat would last until after 7pm, with the regulars harried in a series of defensive engagements with an ever-increasing and finally vastly greater number of colonists. Among the Patriots were the Minutemen of the Danvers Company, who arrived from a full 30 miles away. They were in the thick of the action, as witnessed by the fact that seven of them were killed. That so many had come so far, and in such numbers, can be credited to Paul Revere’s pre-planned organisation of dozens of other riders to spread the alert when the alarm was raised, which had begun the previous evening.
Redcoat casualties continued to mount during the day. In fact it wasn’t until mid-afternoon – when artillery under the command of Brigadier Earl Percy arrived from Boston – that they were given some protection. But for the organisational ability and cannon of Lord Percy, supported over the last few miles by the firepower of British ships anchored in the bay opposite Charlestown, the army’s casualty figures would have been far greater.
[image id="284312" size="landscape_thumbnail" title="Brigadier Earl Percy" alt="Brigadier Earl Percy" classes=""] Brigadier Earl Percy, whose intervention helped to alleviate Redcoat losses. (Image by Alamy)As it was, according to the American Battlefield Trust, casualties amounted to a full fifth of Smith’s Redcoats, with an estimated 73 killed, 174 wounded and a further 53 missing or captured. In contrast, the casualties of the Patriots – 49 killed, 39 wounded and only five missing or captured – were far lower. From now on, the British army based at Boston would be contained in the town itself and to that proportion of the surrounding area that could be protected by its military and naval firepower. There could be no doubt as to who had won the battle.
But there remained a question of immense importance. Quite simply, which of the two sides had been the aggressor? Who had fired the first shot?
In an era in which the influence of newspapers was growing exponentially, the answer would sway opinion on both sides of the Atlantic.
For the Patriots, there was no doubt that the British had been the aggressors. Pitcairn, they said, had shouted: “Disperse you rebels – damn you, throw down your arms and disperse.” Upon which, “The troops huzzaed and immediately one or two officers discharged their pistols, which were instantaneously followed by the firing of four or five of the soldiers, then there seemed to be a general discharge from the whole body. Eight of our men were killed and nine wounded.”
In 1837, poet Ralph Waldo Emerson’s ‘Concord Hymn’ would capture the American Patriots’ spirit of resistance with the phrase “the shot heard round the world”. In 1775, the concerns of the Patriot leadership were more prosaic. They needed the Redcoats to be blamed for events at Lexington and Concord, and for Patriots to be seen as victims rather than aggressors.
On the British side, Governor Gage needed the opposite to be believed. And so, within days of the battle, the governor’s office produced a one-page broadside entitled A Circumstantial Account of an Attack that Happened on the 19th April, on his Majesty’s Troops. Essentially a compilation of reports given to Gage by Smith, Pitcairn and Percy, it stressed how, in Smith’s words, “the troops [had been told they] should not fire unless fired upon” at Lexington. Furthermore, as the troops moved forward, Pitcairn had reinforced this with the message “on no account to fire, not even to attempt it without orders”. Finally, when faced by 200 men on Lexington Green, Pitcairn gave the instruction “not to fire”.
Partly due to the turmoil in the town and partly because of the opposition of the majority of its newspapers to the British account, Gage was not able to publish his Circumstantial Account in the Boston press. Even the loyal Massachusetts Gazette and Boston Newsletter declared, albeit on the very next day after the running battle, “that we are not able to collect anything consistent or regular, and cannot therefore with certainty give our readers any further account of this shocking introduction to all the miseries of a Civil War”. But Gage hardly did much better with the papers outside Boston and beyond.
Whereas the vast majority of the Thirteen Colonies’ 37 newspapers would support the colonists’ report, only five ran Gage’s Circumstantial Account, with some also including critical comment. That said, Gage’s primary audience lay across the Atlantic. Indeed, so keen was Gage to ensure that his account reached London before the colonists’ version of events that he ordered all mail-carrying ships be searched for Patriot propaganda. None was found.
[image id="284303" size="landscape_thumbnail" title="An original copy of A Circumstantial Account, which offered the British authorities’ version of who fired first at Lexington. This broadside largely fell on deaf ears. (Image by Bridegman)" alt="An original copy of A Circumstantial Account" classes=""] An original copy of A Circumstantial Account, which offered the British authorities’ version of who fired first at Lexington. This broadside largely fell on deaf ears. (Image by Bridegman)In contrast, Dr Joseph Warren, president of the revolutionary Massachusetts Provincial Congress, proceeded more slowly but also more surely, and took the time to assemble a full range of eyewitness reports. The vast majority of these were of course by dedicated Patriots, but there were also some from captured British soldiers.
By far the most important of these was from the wounded Lieutenant Edward Gould, an officer of the King’s Own Regiment, whose account would have been widely seen as unimpeachable. Gould had been present at both Lexington and Concord and testified that the Redcoats opened fire at Concord. As for Lexington, he said he could not be certain that his own side had fired the first shot. However, his description of the Redcoats’ aggressive posture and the way they had “rushed on shouting and huzzaing, previous to the firing, which was continued by our troops so long as any of the provincials were to be seen” exactly matched other witness statements – and, incidentally, contradicted Pitcairn’s account.
Gould’s words were presented as corroborative of other damning evidence that was first published as a condensed narrative report in the Essex Gazette of Salem on 25 April. The opening words of the report sum up its tone: “Last Wednesday, the 19th of April, the troops of his Britannic majesty commenced hostilities upon the people of this province, attended with circumstances of cruelty.”
On 25 April, a brig named the Sukey, with Gage’s full report on board, sailed for England.
Yet Warren was not ready to follow suit, as local justices of the peace were still taking witness statements. These were to be added to the bundle of documents that would include the Essex Gazette account and a letter from the Massachusetts Provincial Congress addressed to “The inhabitants of Great Britain”. All were delivered on 27 April to Captain John Derby of Salem, who was commissioned to take the information across the Atlantic. Warren also included a personal note of instructions to Derby which contained a PS that was anything but an afterthought: “You are to keep this order a profound secret from every person on Earth.”
On the night of 28–29 April, with the conditions suitable for avoiding detection by the patrolling Royal Navy, Derby sailed the Quero, his family’s fast trading yacht, out into the open sea.
The brig Sukey was a common type of maritime vessel used both by the navy and commercially for coastal trading as well as oceanic navigation. It took the standard six weeks to cross the Atlantic. In contrast, Derby’s Quero was built for speed and completed the crossing and continued along the Channel as far as the Isle of Wight in less than a month. Surreptitiously landed ashore close to Southampton on the morning of Sunday 28 May, Derby hired the fastest (and most expensive) transport to London, the post chaise, and was in the capital by evening. There he reported to the Virginian Arthur Lee, who had recently succeeded Benjamin Franklin as Massachusetts’ official London representative.
Warren’s instructions were clear. They commanded that the sensational material “be immediately printed and dispersed through every town in England, and especially communicated to the lord mayor, aldermen and council of the City of London, that they make such order thereon as they may think proper”.
[image id="284306" size="landscape_thumbnail" title="John Burgoyne surrenders to American commanders at Saratoga" alt="John Burgoyne surrenders to American commanders at Saratoga" classes=""] John Burgoyne surrenders to American commanders at Saratoga. Britain’s defeat here in 1777 moved France and Spain towards formal declarations of war. (Image by Alamy)Lee was ideally placed to do this. He had extremely good newspaper contacts and knew exactly how to maximise press coverage, both in the capital and regions. As for the highly influential City of London, Lee was himself a sheriff and deputy to Lord Mayor John Wilkes, the radical who had joined the establishment and who was one of Lee’s closest friends.
Knowing that Gage’s official version had not arrived, Lee set about establishing the ‘truth’ of the matter with a two-part publishing coup. The very next day, Monday 29 May, Lee’s favoured London Evening Post published a special ‘extraordinary’ edition. This gave full rein to most, but not all, of the Patriots’ account. However, knowing that the secretary of state, Lord Dartmouth, would use the government’s official London Gazette to attack the status and truth of the Patriots’ published statements, Lee deliberately set out to negate him by designing a piece to run alongside Dartmouth’s own in the following editions of the non-official newspapers.
As Dartmouth became increasingly angry at the perception of a “false impression upon people’s minds”, the Sukey – carrying Gage’s report – still failed to arrive and the Patriot record of events went unchallenged. By the time Gage’s Circumstantial Account finally reached Dartmouth’s desk on 10 June, it was far too late. As early as Tuesday 30 May, Lord Germain, the very man who was soon to take over from Dartmouth as secretary of state for the colonies, acknowledged the immediate impact of the Patriots’ press campaign: “The news from America occasioned a great stir among us yesterday… the Bostonians are in the right to make the king’s troops the aggressors and claim a victory.”
Lexington and Concord gave the Patriots a crucial advantage for the war that followed. In particular, initial perceptions created on 19 April 1775 formed the basis for a growing contempt for the British military leadership, centred on disapproval – on both sides of the argument and on both sides of the Atlantic – at the Redcoats’ perceived initial aggression and brutality in a losing cause.
Member exclusive | Discover the causes, tensions, and violent origins of the Boston Tea Party. Join leading experts as they explain the key players involved in the plan – and why tea was so important to the story.
That perception of British military failure continued for a year. Though Redcoats forced the evolving American army from the field at Bunker Hill in June 1775 (where both Pitcairn and Warren were killed), it was at the cost of disproportionately large casualties on the British side. This was followed, in March 1776, by the British evacuation of Boston – an event that the Americans could claim as a victory. The sense of military ineptitude among Britain’s leadership was etched all the deeper by the Americans having a counterpoint in the upright and gentlemanly General George Washington. From the moment he took command in July 1775 to the end of the conflict, the British press applauded the American leader, and were quick to compare him favourably to their own generals.
If the British Army was to win in America, it had needed to achieve victory swiftly and conclusively. By failing to do so, it not only entrenched the American Patriots’ belief but gave them time to organise and recover from defeats in 1776 and 1777 and to gain foreign support. For there was another group with an eye on events in America and with an acute awareness of public opinion in Britain: French and Spanish diplomats.
After British military incompetence gifted the Americans victory in the defeat at Saratoga in late 1777, first France and then Spain would formally enter the war. The path towards American victory would then be firmly set.
As to who actually fired first, so important a consideration in the battle’s aftermath, it is worth returning to Lieutenant Gould, the most senior of the captured British servicemen on 19 April. Though his signed statement had proved incredibly useful to the Patriots, Gould had said something altogether different to Brigadier Lord Percy during the battle itself. Percy noted that: “Between 1 and 2 o’clock in the afternoon I met with Lt Gould of the King’s Own Regiment, who was wounded and who informed me that the Grenadiers and Light Infantry had been attacked by the rebels about daybreak.”
This information was in the draft version of Percy’s account to Gage, written the following day and thus dating from some days before Gould signed his affidavit to Patriot justices. Percy had then thought it not worth including Gould’s words to him in his finished letter, and the draft was just one of a number of documents that lay for many decades in a dust-encrusted box in the Duke of Northumberland’s Library at Alnwick Castle.
On the draft’s eventual publication in 1902, the difference between it and the final letter was noticed and noted, yet the significance of the omission was not. This potentially critical piece of evidence was no longer considered of consequence. The obscuring dust of time had done its work.
This article was first published in the May 2025 issue of BBC History Magazine
]]>“Cruel and barbarous news from Cheapside,” thundered the headline on 1676 pamphlet. Read on, it invited, to be horrified by the tale of an “unhuman mistress” who attempted to cook her appearance alive on a spit. Another news piece from 1637, which was entitled “Natures Cruell StepDames: or, Matchlesse Monsters of the Female Sex”, grimly recounted the “unnaturall murthering” of two innocent children by their mothers.
Such gruesome titles might not look so very out of place on today’s newsstands and magazine racks. Like us, people in early modern Britain were fascinated by tales of true crime, murder and violent death. Pamphlets and broadside ballads describing the foul deeds of cold-blooded killers were hugely popular, and were sold on street corners, posted in public houses and even sung aloud to audiences – accompanied by surprisingly jolly tunes.
True crime was big business – and, in the literary marketplace of the 16th and 17th centuries, stories of the most extraordinary and bloody acts sold the greatest number of copies. Such murder pamphlets do not provide a realistic representation of crime in the early modern period. Instead, they reflected their readership’s penchant for the crimes considered the most exciting or the most frightening – and, therefore, the most profitable.
[image id="284154" size="landscape_thumbnail" title="A ballad about Alice Davis, who was burned in 1628 for the crime of killing her husband." alt="A ballad about Alice Davis, who was burned in 1628 for the crime of killing her husband." classes=""] A ballad about Alice Davis, who was burned in 1628 for the crime of killing her husband. (Photo by Bridgeman)The bestselling and most prolific genre of murder news featured female killers: wives who murdered their unwanted husbands; ‘bastard-bearing’ mothers who killed their babies to escape social disgrace; wicked witches who cast fatal spells on their neighbours. Such cases were vastly overrepresented in the literature, perhaps giving readers a distorted view of the threat posed by women.
At that time, men committed the majority of violent crimes and homicides. From tavern brawls to duels, male violence was ingrained in early modern society – so much so that it was deemed to be normal, even socially acceptable or desirable. Incidents in which that violence overspilled into the crime of murder were held to be deeply shocking but not entirely surprising.
Women, on the other hand, rarely committed violent crimes, and they rarely killed. So when they did, they were considered monstrous and strange, and became objects of intense fascination, believed to pose a genuine threat to society.
Nowhere is this bizarre moral standard more evident than in the reported cases of men and women who teamed up to commit gruesome acts of murder. In these accounts it is almost always the man who lands the killing blow. Yet, as the following case demonstrates – one that involves some shocking acts of violence – it is the woman who is later held accountable.
On Christmas Eve 1680, in Ratcliff, London, a seamstress named Leticia Wigington was in a furious temper. Her 13-year-old apprentice girl, Elizabeth Houlton, had transgressed in some small way, either by spoiling her work or by taking a few shillings, and so had to be punished. It was usual in this period for wayward wards to be physically corrected, however what was done to Elizabeth that night was an act of “inhuman barbarity” that went far beyond reasonable chastisement.
Leticia summoned her lodger, John Sadler, and persuaded him to help her punish young Elizabeth. John not only agreed, but he also took charge of what was to follow. For almost an hour John carefully fashioned a whip called “a Cat with nine tails”. This was an instrument designed to tear open the victim’s skin as they were being flogged.
They stripped Elizabeth and tied her up by her wrists with whip-cords. John then proceeded to beat her “for 3 or 4 hours”, while periodically “rubbing the wounds with salt”. Leticia held Elizabeth tightly, and at one point stuffed an apron down her throat to block her “lamentable cries”. Having fainted, Elizabeth was cut down and suffered for three days before dying of her wounds.
Both John and Leticia were guilty of torturing and murdering Elizabeth. However, it was clear that John had taken the leading part in the crime: he had made the murder weapon, he had tied Elizabeth up, and he had administered the deathblows.
The true-crime presses, though, were not especially interested in John. In their reporting of the case he was relegated to the role of an accessory, while Leticia was named as the principal murderer. On one pamphlet claiming to publish Leticia’s confession, her name was emblazoned in large black letters across the front page: “Leticia Wigington of Ratclif… Condemned for whipping her Apprentice Girl to Death.” This was followed by the author’s unwavering conviction that all the evidence against her was “full, clear and undeniable”. In his analysis of the case, the author does not mention John at all.
Another pamphlet reported that “Wigington… was indicted, and arraigned for whipping her apprentice girl to death… She having got one Sadler… to make a whip…” In another publication reporting on John’s trial, it was written that “She [Leticia] got the prisoner [John] to help give her correction.”
In these reports, Leticia was the murderous subject while John was simply a mindless object – no more than an extension of the murder weapon. He was depicted as a background figure who was just following orders. Leticia was the cunning, cruel and calculating murderess who may as well have been wielding the whip in her own hand.
Early modern society was strictly hierarchical and patriarchal. Both men and women were held to rigid codes of conduct, and anyone who breached the boundaries of acceptable behaviour was viewed as subversive, even dangerous.
Women of all classes were expected to be subordinate citizens who owed absolute allegiance to the men in their lives: to their fathers, their masters and, especially, their husbands. A woman’s role in society was that of the caregiver and the nurturer: she must be meek, mild and silent. To this end, writers of conduct books instructed women on the virtues of obedience and humility: “A wife must yeeld a chaste, faithfull, matrimoniall subjection to her husband.”
If a woman disobeyed the dictates regarding her gender – if she was loud, bold, selfish, sexually licentious or independent – then she was condemned for failing to play her part in the commonwealth. Such unruly behaviour undermined the very foundations of good society. When women killed, they were met with intense public hostility because they had, seemingly impossibly, transgressed the very laws of man, nature and God. Such women were seen as being unfeminine. Worse than that, they were inhuman.
The true-crime presses were obsessed with such ‘inhuman’ acts, and sometimes went to extraordinary lengths to shift the blame of violent, male-led homicides onto their female accomplices. One such case was reported to have taken place near Romsey in Hampshire in 1686.
William Ives was the landlord of a tavern called the Hatchet, where he lived with his wife, Esther, and their children. Theirs was not a faithful marriage: Esther was having an affair with the local cooper, a “Person of ill Fame” named John Noyse. It was salaciously reported that, in order to “make a freer way for their unlawful Lust”, the adulterous pair conspired to do away with William.
On the night of 5 February, William stayed up late, until about one or two o’clock in the morning, getting blind drunk. At last, he staggered upstairs to bed and fell into a deep sleep. Sensing that their moment had arrived, John and Esther sneaked into his room with the intention to commit murder.
As William lay in a stupor, he was strangled with such force that his neck was broken. A close examination of the body revealed that “much violence appeared to be done to the neck… either by strangling or twisting; insomuch that the blood had issued from him in abundance, and stained the pillow…” William had evidently fought back against his assailant with much vigour, and a great deal of blood was shed. A passing bell-man later testified that he heard a voice shouting “What dost thou do to me, Noyse?”
John and Esther were arrested and later tried at the Lenten Assizes in Winchester on 24 February. In his defence, John blamed Esther, saying that she had provoked a violent quarrel with William, and that he had been obliged to intervene. Yet he did not deny that he was the one who had killed William – in- deed, he could not. Only he had the strength to hold William down, to fight with him, and to apply the necessary force to break his neck. It was also his name that the bell-man heard the victim shouting. John was clearly the murderer, Esther his accessory.
The jury ruled that both John and Esther were equally guilty of the murder, and they were both sentenced to death. Yet when the case was later reported to the public, John and Esther’s roles had been completely reversed. One pamphlet headline dramatically pronounced “A most barbarous and bloody murther, committed by Esther Ives, with the assistance of John Noyse”.
The true-crime presses acknowledged that it was John who had broken William’s neck. However, they held Esther responsible for the killing, because she was the contaminating presence who had, by the very nature of her sex, set into motion this series of murderous events. She was the adulteress who had betrayed her husband; she was the seducer who had besotted the cooper; and she was the instigator who had caused an argument that had resulted in murder. It was she who led John astray and forced his hand; therefore, it was she who was to blame.
It was commonly believed that women, from Eve to Lady Macbeth, had the power to seduce and cajole their menfolk, seemingly against their wills, into committing terrible crimes. “Tis said, there is scarce any notori- ous sin,” wrote one contemporary theologian, “but a woman hath a hand in it.” People in the early modern period were particularly enthralled by tales of “lighte and lascivious women” who used their charms to achieve their murderous ends.
Such a case was reported in the year 1583, in the village of Cotheridge near Worcester. There lived an “honest” and “Godly” husbandman named Thomas Beast with his wife, who was simply named as Mrs Beast, and a “hansome Yonge” servant named Christopher Tomson. The familiar story goes that the older and more experienced Mrs Beast (that “harlot” and “wicked woman”) had taken control of the poor, innocent Christopher (that “sweet dallying freend” and “lusty yonker [youngster]”) by the power of her overwhelming sexuality.
Wholly fed up with married life and the constraints a husband put on her blossoming affair, Mrs Beast decided to be rid of Thomas. She convinced Christopher that once Thomas was dead, they would be free to enjoy each other without censure. Christopher was reluctant, but after a great deal of sweet-talk he was eventually persuaded to do the deed.
Having gotten her way, Mrs Beast sharpened a billhook and placed it into Christopher’s hand with the grim commandment “Be sure to hit him right.” Apparently left with no choice but to accept this charge, Christopher set off to find his master working in the fields. It was a cold and quick killing. When Thomas’s back was turned, Christopher struck him “in such cruel manner, [that] there he killed him”. Soon afterwards the illicit lovers were arrested and placed in prison to await trial.
During this time, it was said that Mrs Beast sought Christopher out and plied him with compliments and love-tokens, perhaps hoping he would spare her life by taking full responsibility for the crime. Her actions were noted, and condemned as yet another women’s trick. In the end her flattery did her no good, as she and Christopher were both tried, found guilty and sentenced to death.
The anonymous author of the true crime pamphlet reporting on these events did their best to enlarge Mrs Beast as a monstrous seductress, and to diminish Christopher as a victim who had been “besotted”, and by the “tirany of loove [sic] possessed” to act against his will. It was a common interpretation that reinforced the popular view that women were indeed dangerous forces of evil: “Oh most horrible and wicked womon, a woman, nay a devill.”
Readers may be struck by how little has changed in the depiction of female killers in our news and true crime media today. When women kill, or are accused of murder, their crimes are almost always highly publicised and sensationalised. The spectres of ‘monstrous mothers’, ‘angels of death’ and ‘black widows’ continue to inspire fear and disgust, and we still refer to female killers as unnatural or as traitors to their sex. In much the same way as our early modern forebears, we expect women to be victims rather than perpetrators of fatal violence.
Yet violence and murder are not the province of men alone, and while women are far less likely to commit acts of blood, it is entirely within their natures to do so.
Blessin Adams is a historian, author and former police investigator. Her new book, Thou Savage Woman: Female Killers in Early Modern Britain (William Collins), is available now.
This article was first published in the April 2025 issue of BBC History Magazine
]]>