(Read time: 10 mins)

Forty-five minutes. That is how long the Battle of Culloden lasted on 16 April 1746. Bonnie Prince Charlie’s men ran like dead weights across 350 yards of boggy ground, their ranks shredded by grapeshot and musket fire before they ever reached the bayonets of Cumberland’s infantry.

There’s a long-standing quip in England—propagated, naturally, by those good folk in the north—that southerners think the known world ends at Watford Gap—a rather unglamorous service station on the M1, some 75 miles north of London. Venture beyond it, the jibe goes, and you risk a nosebleed.

Southerners, for the most part, have never heard of Watford Gap. Which, I guess, is the point.

It turns out that civilisation doesn’t stop at Watford Gap. Run your finger up a map of the UK and you roll over the Midlands and sprawl of Birmingham, then Manchester—billed as the world’s first modern industrial city.

Road signs appear for towns you thought only existed in soap operas and history books about the Industrial Revolution: Wigan, Stockport, Bury, Bolton, Oldham.

Keep running your finger north and off to the right lie the proud former shipbuilding cities of Newcastle and Sunderland.

Press on through the wild beauty of Northumberland and you’ll slip over the border into Scotland, reaching the latitude of the nation’s two great cities, Glasgow and Edinburgh. You feel, at this point, that you must surely be near the top. You are not.

Keep heading north—a long way north. Cross the Cairngorms, glimpse Aberdeen away to the right on the North Sea, and eventually you arrive in Inverness—the northernmost city in the United Kingdom and capital of the Scottish Highlands.

In 1746, Inverness sat 570 miles from the throne of George II—ten days’ hard riding from London, assuming the weather cooperated. In Scotland, it rarely did.

Five miles east of Inverness, there is a patch of open moorland where the silence has never quite recovered. Culloden. There is little drama in the landscape—a treeless, boggy heath with no obvious reason why 1,500 men died here in under an hour on a grey April morning in 1746.

But they did.

​

​

And with them died something else. A dynasty’s last military gamble, a Jacobite dream and the last serious attempt to put a Stuart back on the throne of Britain.

​

Bonnie Prince Charlie

The man responsible for the audacious attempt to reclaim the British throne nearly sixty years after his grandfather was removed from the old English throne was Charles Edward Louis John Casimir Sylvester Maria Stuart—quite the name to grow up with.

History would remember him rather more simply as Bonnie Prince Charlie.

Charles was born in 1720, but not in Scotland. It turns out that one of Scotland’s greatest romantic heroes was born in Rome, spoke English with an Italian accent, and had spent precisely one week on Scottish soil before 1745.

His father was James Stuart—the Old Pretender—son of the deposed James II of England and VII of Scotland. His Jacobite supporters styled him James III of England and VIII of Scotland—royal titles that existed only in their toasts and their dreams.

The Stuart court originally decamped to the Château de Saint-Germain-en-Laye in France in 1689, as honoured guests of Louis XIV. The French, never ones to pass up an opportunity to inconvenience the English, received them with considerable warmth.

James Stuart never relinquished what he saw as his rightful inheritance. By 1719, yet another scheme to reclaim the British throne had collapsed miserably, and the French—now shifting towards peace with Hanoverian Britain—felt the Stuarts had outstayed their welcome.

The entourage decamped to the Palazzo Muti in Rome, a handsome if rather draughty residence, courtesy of Pope Clement XI.

And it was here, in the dying hours of 1720, that the future of the Stuart claim arrived.

​

​

Out of Curiosity

To understand the story of Bonnie Prince Charlie, the Stuart family tree needs a moment’s attention. There were James’s and Charles’s everywhere, the dynasty having exhausted its imagination for first names somewhere around the second generation, so a recap might help:

The Stuarts had ruled Scotland since 1371. When James VI of Scotland also became James I of England after Elizabeth I died without leaving an heir in 1603, the crowns were united.

James I inherited the Henry VIII problem—England was now Protestant, but a restless Catholic minority still simmered. He survived the Gunpowder Plot of 1605, though his son Charles I would prove less fortunate, losing his head by parliamentary order in 1649.

Charles I’s son, also Charles, spent more than a decade in exile while Oliver Cromwell and the Puritan regime ran England with the joyless efficiency of a man who had cancelled Christmas—which, in fact, they had.

When the English experiment in republicanism faltered in 1660, Parliament asked Charles if he would kindly come back, which he did—as Charles II.

Charles II did a reasonable job of steadying the ship, but when his brother James II took over, he proved rather too Catholic and was bundled off-stage after barely three years, in 1688.

Now thoroughly confused about succession, the English invited a Dutch Protestant called William to come over and take charge. He was married to Mary, James II’s Protestant daughter—are you keeping up with this? The pair ruled jointly as William III and Mary II until Mary’s death in 1694, after which William soldiered on alone until 1702.

The last Stuart monarch, Anne—another of James II’s Protestant daughters—then ruled as Queen until her death in 1714.

Anne, inconveniently, left no surviving heir, so the English found themselves hunting Protestants abroad again and, with some desperation, settled on George of Hanover—a 54-year-old German prince who spoke no English, had never visited England and didn’t particularly want to.

And it was into this world—a German on the British throne, the Stuart claim very much alive in the imagination of the French and the Jacobites—that Charles Edward Stuart (Bonnie Prince Charlie) was born in Rome in 1720, son of James Stuart and grandson of the deposed James II.

Clear as mud?

​

​

​

Bonnie Prince Charlie grew up multilingual, charming and restless. He was tutored in the arts of kingship, military strategy and statecraft—groomed, in short, to occupy a throne that existed purely in his father’s imagination. He became an excellent horseman, a passable musician and, crucially, charismatic. People liked him.

This was his life—heading only in one direction.

​

​

‘The Forty-Five’—The Jacobite Uprising of 1745

By the summer of 1745, Charles realised that the French had lost interest in a grand invasion for his sake. He was on his own.

After a couple of false starts, and with rather more courage than strategic sense, he slipped out from the Loire coast—probably near Saint-Nazaire—and in July came ashore on the tiny Hebridean island of Eriskay.

So far so good—but here’s the problem: The accompanying French ship, the Elisabeth, was so badly mauled in a running fight with a Royal Navy warship that she had to limp back to France, taking with her practically the entire arsenal for the campaign.

By the time Charles stepped ashore on Eriskay, he had seven companions, no meaningful weapons, no French troops and no money.

The first clan chief he met told him to go home. With commendable speed, Charles responded that he was home.

​

​

Bonnie Prince Charlie’s plan was to whip up Jacobite sympathisers as he marched south through Scotland, gathering an army the way a snowball gathers momentum on a winter mountainside—all the way to the front door of George II at St James’s Palace in London.

Somehow, against every reasonable calculation, it worked.

Clan after clan rallied to the white cockade. By September, Charles had taken Edinburgh without firing a shot, held court at Holyroodhouse and routed a government army at Prestonpans in a matter of minutes. It was audacious. It was exhilarating. And it was, as events would prove, as good as it was ever going to get.

Bonnie Prince Charlie’s army pushed south into England. At Derby, in early December 1745, they were only 125 miles from London.

But then a wave of common sense overcame his Highland commanders as they checked their arithmetic: The expected English Jacobite support had amounted to a trickle. Despite word of the march already spreading fear throughout London, they still had little chance of defeating the British Army.

Charlie’s outrage could not stop the Jacobites voting to turn around. The snowball was heading back up the mountain.

In that moment, the Jacobite dream evaporated.

​

Back north and into trouble.

The retreat north began on 6 December 1745—Black Friday, as the Jacobites called it. It was grim and demoralising. Charles’s army was cold, hungry and dwindling, with government forces under William Augustus, Duke of Cumberland closing in behind them.

By the night of 15 April 1746, Charles was back in the Highlands, trudging towards Inverness. His men had been on the march for days, some hadn’t eaten in forty-eight hours and many had simply melted away into the hills. They could go no further.

Ahead lay Culloden Moor—a bleak, boggy expanse of open ground five miles east of Inverness. Charles decided it was a good place to make a stand.

It wasn’t.

​

The Battle of Culloden

Forty-five minutes. That is how long the Battle of Culloden lasted on 16 April 1746.

Cumberland’s artillery opened up on the Jacobite lines across the open moor, and Charles—positioned at the rear—waited too long to order the Highland charge.

As the artillery fire rained down, the helpless—and freezing—clansmen were torn apart. By the time the order to charge finally reached the front line, it was too late.

The exhausted men ran like dead weights across 350 yards of boggy ground, their ranks shredded by grapeshot and musket fire before they ever reached the bayonets of Cumberland’s infantry.

​

​

Within an hour, around fifteen hundred men lay dead or dying on the moor—most of them Jacobites. It was over almost before it had begun.

Not content with victory on the moor, Cumberland pursued the remnants of the uprising with a ferocity that would earn him the nickname ‘The Butcher’. Wounded men were put to the sword where they lay. Suspected sympathisers saw their homes plundered and burned.

What followed would reshape Highland society for a generation: clan structures dismantled, tartan banned, the carrying of arms forbidden.

Scotland would never be quite the same again.

​

As for Charlie….

Having led his men disastrously from the back, Bonnie Prince Charlie left the field once it was clear the battle was lost.

For five months, he was hunted across the Highlands and islands. He slept in caves, crossed mountains in driving rain and ate what he could find.

He was hidden and sheltered by ordinary people—Jacobite sympathisers who risked everything for him. Despite a bounty of £30,000 on his head—the equivalent of around £7 million today—nobody claimed the prize.

In September 1746, a French frigate picked up the last Stuart off Loch nan Uamh, near Arisaig—almost the same stretch of coast where he had first set foot on Scottish soil fourteen months earlier.

Bonnie Prince Charlie sailed to France, and never returned.

​

Out of curiosity

During his escape, Flora MacDonald—a young woman from the Western Isles—helped smuggle Bonnie Prince Charlie from Benbecula to Skye, disguised, somewhat optimistically, as her Irish maidservant ‘Betty Burke’. Charles was six feet tall and conspicuously royal. Betty Burke was not a triumph of disguise, but it worked nonetheless.

The dramatic escape with Flora MacDonald later inspired the famous, mournful song we now know as “The Skye Boat Song,” with its image of a ‘bonnie boat’ carrying the prince over the sea to Skye.

Speed, bonnie boat, like a bird on the wing.
Onward, the sailors cry!
Carry the lad that’s born to be King
Over the sea to Skye.

If you get a moment, listen to The Skye Boat Song​.

​

​

Annie MacLeod first heard the melody when crossing on a boat trip to Skye in the 1870s, when the rowers broke out with a Gaelic song “Cuachag nan Craobh”, or “The Cuckoo in the Grove”.

Written around 1782, it was the lament of a lovelorn man rejected by a woman who had chosen, in his grief, to discuss the matter with a cuckoo. The cuckoo’s feedback isn’t recorded.

Sir Harold Boulton—an Englishman, and therefore perhaps an unlikely custodian of Scottish romantic history—then wrote new Jacobite lyrics for the tune in the 1880s, and The Skye Boat Song was published in 1884.

​

The aftermath

The rest of Bonnie Prince Charlie’s life is a melancholic postscript. The French, unimpressed by his drunken and erratic behaviour during the Seven Years’ War, quietly gave up on him, and he slid deeper into alcohol. A late marriage produced no legitimate heirs and no happiness.

Charles Edward Stuart died in Rome in 1788, a hopeless drunk and a long-forgotten footnote in history. He was 67 years old.

​

​

Bonnie Prince Charlie is one of history’s great romantic figures—which is to say, someone whose story is more compelling in the telling than the living. The Forty-Five was reckless, underfunded and ultimately catastrophic for the people who believed in it most.

And yet. The courage of a young man landing on a windswept island with seven companions and the unshakeable conviction that he was coming home is genuinely something. The loyalty of those who hid him, at enormous personal risk, is something more.

Culloden closed a chapter of British history that had been a century in the writing. What followed—the repression of the Highlands, the erosion of clan society, the Clearances and the long dispersal of the Scottish diaspora—makes it one of the most consequential single hours in the history of these islands.

Thank you for joining me. Have a great week!

Steve

HOST & CHIEF STORY HUNTER

ATTRIBUTIONS
Bonnie Prince Charlie: ​Cosmo Alexander​, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons. The Battle of Culloden: ​David Morier​, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons.
London to Culloden: ​Equestenebrarum​, CC BY 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons.
Oliver Cromwell inspects the decapitated body of Charles I: ​Paul Delaroche​, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons.
Eriskay, Skye & Culloden: ​Eric Gaba (Sting - fr:Sting)​, CC BY-SA 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons.

CC BY-SA 3.0: ​https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0 ​
CC BY-SA 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

(Read time: 10 min)

Virginia Hall was born on 6th April 1906. Years later, she would find herself in Vichy France, under cover as a reporter for the New York Post—the first active female field agent in France for Churchill’s controversial Special Operations Executive (SOE).

When it comes to entertainment, few thrills compare to watching the world’s great illusionists—David Copperfield, Penn & Teller, Derren Brown, Siegfried & Roy. On the face of it, each act is unique. But look closer, and they share one defining quality: sheer, unapologetic audacity.

The misdirection that pulls your eye just far enough in the wrong direction. The now-you-see-it, now-you-don’t sleight of hand. And then the final reveal—hiding in plain sight the whole time, if only you’d known where to look. Each of those elements requires nerves of steel and absolute self-belief.

Recent history has produced at least one performer who had these skills in abundance. But she was no illusionist. Her theatre wasn’t a Vegas stage or a West End show. It was Nazi-occupied France during the Second World War—and her audience was the Gestapo. The price of a bad performance wasn’t a slow handclap. It was arrest, torture and almost certain death.

​

​

Maryland in 1906 was a state caught between two worlds. Baltimore was a prosperous, confident city—Johns Hopkins University was a model of American scientific education, while the harbour bustled with trade.

However, for most women, the social rules were rigid, the expectations clear. Women in the United States could not yet vote—that would come fourteen years later. As for careers, anything beyond the domestic was considered eccentric at best, and at worst, mildly scandalous.

Virginia Hall was born 6 April 1906, into a family that divided its time between an elegant city home and a 110-acre retreat in the countryside near Parkton.

She attended the elite Roland Park School and grew up with every comfort; the sort of upbringing that seemed to point in only one direction—marry well, manage a household and leave the larger world to the men.

Virginia had other ideas.

She was cantankerous, headstrong and far more interested in horses, hunting and foreign horizons than in the society marriage her mother had mapped out for her.

In her twenties, Virginia roamed and studied across Europe. She picked up French, German and Italian along the way, before landing a post as a consular clerk for the US State Department—firstly in Warsaw, then Smyrna in Turkey, and finally Venice.

​

​

The consular work brought Virginia into the embassies, but only through the back door—typing and filing while others carried the titles and made the decisions. What she wanted was a commission as a Foreign Service Officer, one of the real diplomats who actually spoke for the United States.

There was a catch. Of the several hundred Foreign Service Officers on the State Department’s books, exactly six were women.

Virginia’s application was repeatedly rejected. Each time she would pick herself up, dust herself down and try again—which, as it turned out, was rather good training for what was coming.

​

The accident

In December 1933 while stationed in Smyrna, the energetic Baltimorean joined friends on a snipe shoot along the marshes of the Gediz peninsula. Climbing a fence, Virginia stumbled and simultaneously discharged her shotgun into her left foot. Bleeding heavily, she was rushed to hospital.

​

​

Despite the surgeons’ best efforts, Virginia’s leg was amputated below the knee. Back home in Maryland, she was fitted with a seven-pound wooden prosthetic—aluminium foot, leather straps and all the elegance of a fence post. Rudimentary by today’s standards, but considerably better than the alternative.

Hall named her new companion Cuthbert. As soon as she learned to walk again, she returned to work. As for future applications, the State Department now had two reasons to turn her down.

​

World War II—1940

War broke over Europe in 1939 while Virginia was stationed in Tallinn, Estonia. After one final rebuff from the State Department, she resigned, went to Paris, and signed on as an ambulance driver in France—swapping diplomatic back rooms for the chaos of retreating armies.

When France fell in June 1940, Virginia trekked over the Pyrenees into Spain. On one occasion at Irun railway station, she struck up a conversation with British agent George Bellows. That meeting would change her life.

Within months, Hall found herself in Vichy France, under cover as a reporter for the New York Post—the first active female field agent in France for Churchill’s controversial Special Operations Executive (SOE).

​

Out of Curiosity

When France fell in June 1940, the armistice carved the country into two: German-occupied north and west, and a so-called Free Zone in the south.

Under pressure from the Nazis, a compliant French government installed itself in the southern spa town of Vichy, under the elderly Marshal Philippe Pétain.

Pétain and his ministers dutifully carried out Hitler’s bidding, while maintaining the polite fiction of French independence.

This collaborationist regime would later be referred to as Vichy France.

​

​

​

Privately, Virginia’s supervisors in London gave her a few days before the Gestapo would catch up with her. They were spectacularly wrong.

In Lyon, she built a clandestine network—codenamed ‘HECKLER’—from scratch. She recruited volunteers from every background, organised safe houses, coordinated arms drops and threaded escape routes through occupied territory for downed Allied airmen.

Among Virginia’s most valuable recruits was Germaine Guérin, the owner of Lyon’s most prominent brothel. German officers, it turned out, were more talkative with their trousers off—and the pillow talk of the master race proved remarkably useful.

​

The First Act—misdirection

In October 1941, twelve SOE-linked agents gathered for a meeting in Marseille. Virginia instinctively chose not to go. Vichy police raided the meeting and the twelve men were sent to the Mauzac internment camp near Bergerac.

Virginia resolved to get them out.

Too well known to go anywhere near the prison herself, she recruited Gaby Bloch—wife of one of the prisoners—to make regular visits to Mauzac with food parcels. What the guards didn’t know was what the tins and packages contained.

One of the captured agents used the hidden tools from the food parcels to fashion a key to the barracks door. Meanwhile, Virginia located the safe houses, arranged vehicles and prepared disguises for the escapees.

Virginia’s masterstroke was in the detail. When twelve agents walked calmly out of the barracks door to freedom on 15 July 1942, she immediately seeded disinformation that RAF aircraft had already whisked them back to England.

By the time the Vichy authorities worked out that the escapees were still in France, Virginia had already moved them by truck and train to Lyon, across Spain and, eventually, back to England.

The Germans were incandescent. They poured hundreds of Gestapo and Abwehr agents into the areas around Lyon.

Local Gestapo chief Klaus Barbie—later to earn the title of ‘the Butcher of Lyon’—made Hall his prime target, vowing to get his hands on “that limping bitch”.

​

​

Through 1942, Hall’s networks were repeatedly betrayed, most notoriously by Abbé Robert Alesch, a Catholic priest who was secretly working for German intelligence. Her colleagues were arrested one by one.

In September, Virginia radioed London: “My time is about up”.

​

The Second Act—Now you see her, now you don’t

On 7 November 1942, the American consulate warned Virginia that Germany planned to occupy the Free Zone the following day. Klaus Barbie’s Gestapo would have a free hand. The most wanted woman in occupied France had only hours.

Hall burned her papers, told nobody she was leaving—not her doctor, not her brothel owner, not a single soul in her network—and boarded a train south to Perpignan.

From there, she hired a guide—a reluctant one, who had serious doubts about a woman with a prosthetic leg tackling a 7,500-foot mountain pass in the depths of winter. Virginia went anyway.

The route rose through heavy snow for fifty miles over two days, the temperature dropping savagely with every hour of altitude gained. With each step, Cuthbert ground her stump to a raw and bloody mess.

At a safe house partway across the mountains, Virginia paused to radio London: “Cuthbert is being tiresome, but I can cope.”

London replied: “If Cuthbert is troublesome, have him eliminated.”

She smiled, kept walking, and crossed into Spain—where she was arrested for illegal border crossing. American diplomatic pressure finally secured Hall’s release.

The deception was simple and devastating. One day Virginia Hall was the most wanted woman in France. The next, she had ceased to exist. No farewell, no trace, no trail. Klaus Barbie and his five hundred agents were left grasping at shadows.

​

The Third Act—Hidden in plain sight

Once back in Britain, Virginia demanded to return to France.

The SOE said absolutely not. Too well known. Too compromised. Too dangerous. So Virginia quit the SOE and joined the American Office of Strategic Services (OSS), who had no hesitation sending her straight back to France.

In March 1944, she arrived in darkness by boat on the Brittany coast.

​

​

This time she went back as an elderly French peasant woman—shuffling, stooped, entirely unremarkable. Virginia had dyed her hair grey, filed her own teeth down to age herself, padded her clothes to kill her figure and buried Cuthbert’s telltale limp inside the slow, arthritic hobble of old age.

Nobody gave the old woman a second glance.

The most wanted Allied spy in France was hiding in plain sight—selling cheese to German soldiers while transmitting intelligence from barns and organising, arming and training three full battalions of Maquis fighters ahead of D-Day.

Klaus Barbie’s wanted posters were everywhere. His agents were searching frantically. And all this time, the limping lady was right under their noses, shuffling past them in the village square.

Read more

(read time: 9 mins.)

At a sitting on 8 April 1856, just days after the peace was signed, Camillo forced the ‘Italian question’ onto the agenda of the assembled great powers. Napoleon III had taken note. Secondary sources quote him as privately asking Cavour, “Que puis-je faire pour l’Italie?” What can I do for Italy? Five years later, Victor Emmanuel II was proclaimed the first king of a unified Italy.

The Crimean War—1853–1856. You probably know the story. Well, more likely the British version.

Six hundred horsemen. One valley flanked by Russian artillery on three sides. One baffling order. And presiding over it all, a cast of characters so magnificently, catastrophically unsuited to the task of high command that the charge of the Light Brigade was doomed before the first trumpet sounded.

​

This was the era when much of the British Army ran on a beautifully simple principle: if you were born into the right family, the right rank would follow. In most infantry and cavalry regiments, commissions were bought, not earned—meaning the people most likely to get other people killed were the least likely to know how to avoid it.

​

​

Take Lord Raglan… the British commander-in-chief in Crimea hadn’t commanded troops in the field since the Battle of Waterloo, 39 years earlier. He also had a somewhat disconcerting habit of referring to the French as ‘the enemy’… the French, that is, who were fighting alongside the British against the Russians.

Then there was the Earl of Cardigan, who commanded the Light Brigade… a man described by one of his own officers as having “as much brains as my boot”.

And let’s not forget the Earl of Lucan, Cardigan’s brother-in-law and the man who relayed the fateful order—whom the rank and file had cheerfully nicknamed ‘the cautious ass’.

All of which is to say: The British blundered their way through the Crimean War with a kind of extravagant, aristocratic confidence that was breathtaking to behold.

But here is the thing about the Crimean War: It wasn’t just a British story. The French and the Ottomans were there too. And towards the end of the war, another party appeared—the Kingdom of Sardinia, also referred to as Piedmont-Sardinia.

Which raised an obvious question. What was a relatively small kingdom tucked into the north of the Italian peninsula doing rubbing shoulders with the great powers in a war being fought on the far side of Europe?

As it happens, the Piedmontese had their own reasons for showing up, and it had nothing whatsoever to do with Crimea.

​

Remember Garibaldi’s Italy?

A couple of weeks ago, I wrote about Giuseppe Garibaldi and the unification of Italy—how his red-shirts landed in Sicily in 1860 and worked their way up the peninsula, how a nation seemed to be born from the sheer force of one man’s military audacity, and how Victor Emmanuel II the King of Piedmont-Sardinia, was proclaimed the first King of Italy in 1861.

What I didn’t mention was where the story actually began. Not on a Sicilian beach. Not with a red shirt or a drawn sword.

It began in a conference room in Paris six years earlier in 1856, with the signing of the Treaty of Paris that ended the Crimean War—and with a small northern kingdom that had earned itself a place among the great powers.

It turns out that there was more than one way to earn a seat at the peace table when it was all over.

You didn’t have to blunder your way there. You could just be smarter than everyone else.

​

​

​
I’m jumping ahead; back to the Crimean War…

The seeds of the Crimean War were sown in 1853, when a squabble broke out between the Ottoman Empire and Russia over who had the right to protect the Christian holy sites in Jerusalem. At least, that was the spark for a deeper issue... Russia’s drive for secure access from the Black Sea to the Mediterranean.

At the time, the Ottoman Empire controlled the Bosphorus and the Dardanelles, the two narrow straits forming the only sea-route between the Black Sea and the Mediterranean.

Russia’s great northern ports on the Baltic and in the Arctic iced up in winter, leaving much of its fleet effectively powerless for months at a time.

Access from the Russian naval base at Sevastopol on the Crimean peninsula through those straits to the Mediterranean was therefore existential for Russian sea power.

​

Russia used the Jerusalem quarrel as cover to start pushing into Ottoman territory. The French and British, with no desire to see Russia parading their ships through the Mediterranean, decided enough was enough.

The two Empires joined the Crimean War on 28 March 1854.

The war itself was, for the most part, a siege. Allied forces landed on the peninsula in September 1854 and spent the next eleven months trying to batter their way into Sevastopol.

It was grinding, miserable work in the trenches and batteries around the city—punctuated by a handful of set-piece battles at Alma, Balaclava and Inkerman.

The war’s most effective killer turned out to have nothing to do with the Russians. Cholera, dysentery and typhus tore through the Allied camps with a thoroughness that the enemy never quite matched. More men died of disease than in action.

​

Rewinding back to 1810…

Camillo Paolo Filippo Giulio Benso, Count of Cavour, was born in Turin on 10 August 1810. He was the second son of an ancient Piedmontese noble family—which, in the arithmetic of nineteenth-century aristocracy, meant he would inherit neither the estate nor any particular expectations.

As such, second sons were directed towards the church or the army and left to get on with it.

Camillo chose the army, and was duly dispatched to the Royal Military Academy in Turin. He proved a capable soldier, but a man of his restless intelligence was never going to thrive on drill and obedience.

Five years after graduating, he walked away from the uniform, one suspects before the uniform had the chance to walk away from him.

Cavour was short, stocky, round-faced and sported thick spectacles. By the time he reach forty, his reddish hair was thinning and his scanty beard had almost given up.

Camillo had rather more the air of a man who might audit your accounts than redraw the map of a continent. He was also a heavy gambler and womaniser of considerable dedication.

Spoiler alert… the Count of Cavour never married.

However, what he may have lacked in appearance and personal restraint, Camillo more than made up for with intelligence. And patience. And a strategic clarity of vision that would have made Lord Raglan weep with envy.

​

​

The dream of Italy

As Cavour was growing up, a unified Italian nation was the dream of revolutionaries and poets, not ministers and kings. Austria, which controlled the rich northern provinces of Lombardy and Venetia, had every interest in keeping it that way.

Cavour understood early that this would not change through revolution alone. Austria was too strong. Piedmont-Sardinia was too small. He needed to secure the military backing of a major European power.

And the only major European power likely to be sympathetic was France—specifically, its new emperor, Napoleon III.

After a stint managing his family’s estates, Cavour entered politics, founded an influential newspaper called Il Risorgimento—The Resurgence—and rose with remarkable speed to become Prime Minister of Piedmont-Sardinia in 1852.

From his desk in Turin, Camillo watched the Eastern crisis slide into the Crimean War with the focused attention of a chess player studying the board. And he began, quietly, to plan his move.

​

The gamble

By 1855, Britain and France were urging Piedmont-Sardinia to join the war against Russia. They needed troops. Although Cavour was privately reluctant, his eye was on the endgame.

When the guns fell silent, there would be a peace congress. And at that peace congress, the great powers would sit around a table and decide what Europe would look like going forward.

Cavour needed to be at that table.

So, in January 1855, he committed 18,000 Piedmontese troops to the Crimea. They fought with genuine distinction and suffered around 2,000 casualties. The bill was steep. But Cavour was not paying for military glory.

He was buying a chair.

​

Belt and braces

To reinforce his military gamble, the Count of Cavour conjured up a supplementary strategy.

He had a cousin, Virginia Oldoini, Countess of Castiglione. The Countess was considered by some to be the most beautiful woman in Europe, a distinction that proved to be her greatest asset and most persistent problem.

She was eighteen, unhappily married, and possessing a restless intelligence that the men around her were far too distracted to notice.

Cavour noticed.

In December 1855, as the Congress of Paris was being prepared, he arranged for the Countess to travel to Paris, instructing her to “succeed by whatever means you wish—but succeed” in securing Napoleon III’s sympathy for Italian unification.

At one of her first appearances at the Tuileries Palace, she made a carefully timed—and fashionably late—entrance. The dancing stopped. The orchestra stopped. Napoleon III stopped.

The affair began shortly after, as did conversation of a unified Italy.

Whether it was the 18,000 troops, the Countess, or a combination of both, Piedmont-Sardinia secured its seat at the Congress of Paris.

​

​

The Congress of Paris

Sevastopol finally fell in September 1855, after the French stormed a key defensive position the Russians had held for nearly a year. With their great fortress gone and Black Sea Fleet scuttled, Russia had little left to fight with.

The Crimean War ended, as wars do, with a treaty—the Treaty of Paris. The Congress opened at the Quai d’Orsay on 25 February 1856. Around the table sat representatives of France, Britain, Russia, Austria, Prussia and the Ottoman Empire.

And, of course, Piedmont-Sardinia.

Cavour arrived in Paris and for five weeks threw himself into the proceedings with characteristic energy. He watched, he waited and worked every room that he entered.

The official business of the Congress was settled relatively quickly. By the time the Treaty of Paris was signed, 30 March 1856, Russia had been deprived of its Black Sea war fleet. The sea was declared neutral, closed to all warships and naval arsenals, while the Danube was opened to international commerce.

In addition, the Ottoman Empire was admitted to the Concert of Europe, its independence and territorial integrity guaranteed.

Russia was humiliated, but not destroyed. The European balance of power had been restored… for the moment.

​

Cavour’s move

One of the signatories had a rather different balance in mind. Cavour had played a hand so quiet and so patient that many of the men around the table only realised how much he had gained when the cards were already on the cloth.

At a sitting on 8 April 1856, just days after the peace was signed, Camillo forced the ‘Italian question’ onto the agenda of the assembled great powers. Austria was not pleased. But Britain and France, leaning back in their chairs and with little love for Rome and Naples, raised no serious objection.

Although Cavour left Paris without a written guarantee, Napoleon III had taken note. Secondary sources quote him as privately asking Cavour, “Que puis-je faire pour l’Italie?” What can I do for Italy?

For Cavour, that was enough. Five years later, Victor Emmanuel II was proclaimed the first king of a unified Italy.

Read more

(Read time: 9 mins.)

Alistair Cooke sat down in his Fifth Avenue, fifteenth-floor flat overlooking Central Park and just started typing what came to him in the moment. On 24 March 1946, he broadcast the first edition of American Letter.

I recently mentioned my childhood Saturday morning ritual of watching Casey Jones, whose repeats were still steamin’ and a-rollin’ across British television screens well into the 1970s.

As it happens, another American broadcast was a regular fixture in our house at around the same time—and for the thirty years that followed. This one, though, was strictly Sunday mornings.

Coming downstairs at around 9:15, I would find my father in his favourite chair, Sunday broadsheets spread around him like a small paper city, BBC Radio 4 purring from the radio in the corner.

Through the rustle of newsprint would drift the unhurried, mid-Atlantic tones of Alistair Cooke, delivering his weekly Letter from America.

Who’s Alfred?

Alfred (later Alistair) Cooke came into the world on 20 November 1908 in Salford, Lancashire—a gritty industrial city adjacent to Manchester and an area I know well from my three years at Manchester University.

His father, Samuel Cooke, was a metalsmith and Methodist lay preacher, his mother, Mary Elizabeth, an Irish Protestant.

Number 7 Isaac Street, Ordsall, Salford—where Cooke was born and grew up—was a two-storey red-brick terrace, one of a continuous run of houses lining either side of the street.

The house was a typical modest worker’s home—the kind that Salford produced by the thousand in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.

It comprised a small front room and kitchen downstairs, with two bedrooms above. In the rear yard, a scullery was standard, as was the outside toilet that nobody wanted to visit in January. The windows were kept small, keeping the warmth in and the industrial pollution out.

Smoke from the mills, foundries and factories hung over Isaac Street as kids played in the road. In that part of Salford, greenery was a luxury, not a given.

Nothing about Isaac Street suggested that the boy at Number 7 would one day address the United States Congress, be appointed an honorary Knight of the British Empire, or become the BBC’s defining voice in America for the best part of sixty years.

While still a child, Alfred moved with his family from the industrial haze of Salford to the windswept promenades of Blackpool—out of the frying pan and straight into a tray of soggy chips.

The buzz of England’s favourite working-class seaside resort would have been exciting for the young boy; in terms of weather, though, it was just a different arrangement of the same grey.

Alfred or Alistair

In 1927, Alfred won a scholarship to Jesus College, Cambridge—no small feat for a boy from working-class Salford. To graduate three years later with honours in English was remarkable.

On or around his 22nd birthday, while at Cambridge, Cooke had an epiphany. He killed off Alfred.

A swift deed poll later and the rather workaday Alfred was quietly retired in favour of the more distinguished Alistair. It was part of a considered effort to craft a persona befitting the literary and theatrical career he had every intention of pursuing.

Alfreds Tennyson, Nobel and Hitchcock may have raised a collective eyebrow at this initiative, but young Alfred Cooke had made up his mind.

Out of Curiosity

When Cooke founded and ran the Cambridge Mummers—the university’s theatre group open to both sexes—a young student approached him for an audition.

Cooke recorded the student as “painfully shy” and, in his opinion, “entirely without acting promise”. During the audition, he saw “no point in delaying the agony” and asked what subject the student was reading. “Architecture,” came the reply.

“Stick to it”, said Cooke.

The rejected student was James Mason—who would become one of Britain’s most internationally celebrated film stars of the 1940s, 50s and 60s.

Cooke must have dined out on that story for decades.

Bound for America

In 1932, armed with a Commonwealth Fund Fellowship and a sense of adventure, upwardly mobile Alistair crossed the Atlantic to study drama at Yale, before moving on to Harvard the following year.

However, it became clear that Cooke was studying something else entirely—America itself. He travelled the country extensively, talking to strangers, walking unfamiliar cities and eating whatever was put in front of him.

Cooke was falling in love.

This was 1930s America, a nation of contradictions: Hollywood glamour contrasted with the misery of the Great Depression; Jazz clubs nestled alongside bread queues; skyscrapers soared while banks crashed to earth.

This was a nation reinventing itself; it was a young journalist’s dream.

Apart from a three-year spell as the BBC’s film critic between 1934 and 1937, America would be Cooke’s home for the rest of his life.

On 1 December 1941—with what I can only describe as impeccable timing—he swore the Oath of Allegiance and became an American citizen. Six days later, Japan bombed Pearl Harbour.

How about a Letter from America?

In the 1930s, while working for NBC, Cooke had been broadcasting a radio show for American listeners called London Letter—describing everyday life in Britain.

In 1937, now settled in America, he suggested to the BBC that he could do the same in reverse: talk about American life for British audiences.

Lord Reith, the BBC’s formidable Director-General, raised his eyebrow at the suggestion. A fierce guardian of British cultural standards, he was wary of promoting an “American-style free-for-all”.

Nonetheless, Reith cautiously agreed to a trial series called ‘Mainly about Manhattan’ which ran between 1938 and 1939. The transatlantic experiment came to an abrupt halt, like so much else, by the outbreak of war.

After the war, with the BBC conscious of America’s pre-eminent place in the new post-war order, a regular broadcast explaining American life to British listeners now seemed not just natural… but necessary.

After Cooke’s one-off American Letter broadcast in November 1945, Controller of the BBC Home Service, Lindsay Wellington, commissioned a short series. He warned Cooke that only if the initial thirteen-week run did “wildly” well, might it be extended to twenty-six.

American Letter—soon to become Letter from America— ould run for fifty-eight years.

In preparation for the first series broadcast of American Letter—and in typically understated fashion—Alistair Cooke sat down in his Fifth Avenue, fifteenth-floor flat overlooking Central Park and just started typing what came to him in the moment.

On 24 March 1946, Cooke broadcast the first edition of American Letter.

Once he had drafted a letter, he would usually record the broadcast from the BBC studio in New York. Sometimes Cooke would record from “wherever his other duties took him”. In later years, that would include from his own bed, as his health failed him.

The weekly fifteen-minute radio programme—designed to give British listeners a window into life in the United States—would become the longest-running speech radio programme hosted by a single individual in the history of broadcasting.

For each week of the 2,869 broadcasts, Cooke sat in that Central Park flat, put a blank sheet into his typewriter and typed… about Eisenhower and Nixon. About Kennedy and Vietnam. About the space race and the Civil Rights Movement. About Watergate and the fall of the Berlin Wall.

But Cooke was as eager to discuss Senator Jacob Javits’ parking fine as he was to contemplate the murder of John Lennon. He would linger over a New England blizzard as intensely as over the day John F. Kennedy was assassinated.

With characteristic dry humour, Cooke recounted the story of Meyer L. Sugarman’s wedding night. Meyer had done everything right. He had found his girl, popped the question and booked a room at the Nevele Country Club Towers in Ellenville, New York, for their honeymoon.

What he had failed to account for was President Lyndon B. Johnson.

The White House, with the breezy indifference of the very powerful, cancelled Sugarman’s reservation to make way for the President and his entourage.

Meyer fired off an indignant telegram to Washington.

The White House blinked first. The room was returned and Mrs Sugarman’s nuptials, I assume, went ahead more or less as originally intended.

And who else could have explained to a Brit that strange game of baseball or the peculiar American relationship with the motorcar in such a way that we would listen?

Alistair Cooke could make anything sound fascinating because he was interested in everything.

Perhaps Alistair Cooke’s most memorable broadcast came on 9 June 1968. Four days earlier, America was rocked by the news that Robert Kennedy had been shot in a pantry off the main kitchen of the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles, minutes after delivering a victory speech claiming success in the California Democratic presidential primary.

Read more

(Read time: 10 mins.)

Giuseppe Garibaldi gathered a thousand men from Quarto—’I Mille’, ‘The Thousand’—and slipped out to sea. They wore red shirts, carried whatever weapons they could lay their hands on and headed out to challenge a Bourbon army tens of thousands strong. Within a year, they witnessed the unification of Italy.

There was a period in my early childhood—mid-70s, give or take—when Saturday-morning perfection was entirely achievable.

I was lucky enough to be regularly deposited at Gran and Grandpa’s at weekends. Presumably, my mother had identified that I was exhausting and she needed the break.

Whatever, it enabled me to watch Casey Jones steamin’-and-a-rollin’ across the black and white television screen, followed at some point by Gran producing the biscuit tin. Custard-Creams, Bourbons and Garibaldis. Of course, I always went for the Garibaldis.

Garibaldi biscuits are those flat, slightly austere rectangles with embedded squashed currants—or, as we called them, dead fly biscuits. I appeared to be the only person who chose them.

For everyone else, they were the biscuit you reached for when there was no other choice—the biscuit tin equivalent of the little blue-wrapped Bounty bars left at the bottom of the box of Celebrations after Christmas.

I didn’t know it then, but Gran, Casey Jones and Garibaldis had set a standard for Saturday mornings that the rest of my life has quietly failed to match.

But here’s the thing about Garibaldi biscuits: they were named after a man so extraordinary, so recklessly brave and so magnificently larger-than-life that a British pick-and-mix biscuit seems a totally inadequate tribute.

A warship, perhaps. A mountain range. A continent, at a stretch. But not a dead fly biscuit.

​

​

In 1860, the nation of Italy didn’t exist…

…but the idea of Italia can be traced back to the Ancient Greeks in the 5th century BCE, referring to the southern tip, rather prosaically, as ‘the land of the calves and bulls’.

By the late 1st century BCE, the Romans had stretched the term all the way to the Alps. After that, Italia retreated into the imagination—surviving in sermons, poems and letters… a name in search of a nation.

Fast forward to the nineteenth century.

The boot of Europe was still a patchwork of factions, each squabbling with the next and most operating under varying degrees of foreign influence.

There was San Marino, Piedmont-Sardinia in the northwest, the Papal States, the Bourbon Kingdom of the Two Sicilies in the south, Austrian-ruled Lombardy-Venetia in the north and a few others.

The fragmented nature of the boot echoed across Europe. The continent was a collection of city-states, duchies, principalities and sprawling empires. They were stitched together by churches that told you God was in charge and monarchs who claimed to speak in His name.

For most people, this hierarchy was simply the way the world was arranged.

Then along came the Enlightenment…

…an eighteenth-century outbreak of reason and rational thought, closely followed by the French Revolution and the meteoric rise of Napoleon. The old order began to look a little shaky.

The Church’s unquestioned authority was under attack. Dynastic monarchy had been cut down to size—in the case of Louis XVI of France, quite literally. He lost his head.

These two great pillars of European society had developed deep cracks, and new ideas rushed to fill the vacuum.

The outcome was a powerful new narrative: that God—or history, or nature, take your pick—had divided humanity into distinct peoples. Each was bound by language, geography, history and—most importantly—a shared spirit. A nation wasn’t just a right, it was destiny.

This was Romantic Nationalism, and it was intoxicating stuff.

Rising levels of literacy, the expansion of the printing press and a growing tide of newspapers and novels did the rest. People who had never met could now imagine themselves as part of the same community.

In Italia, this groundswell of feeling had a name: the Risorgimento, or ‘the Resurgence’.

Once you could imagine it, you could want it. And once enough people wanted it, someone would have to go and fight for it.

​

​

Giuseppe Maria Garibaldi…

…was born on 4 July 1807. Not in Rome, not in Florence, not even in Milan, but Nice, part of the First French Empire.

In the early nineteenth century, Nice was still a modest Mediterranean port, a working harbour rather than a playground for princes. The young Giuseppe grew up in a seafaring family, watching the fishing boats come and go.

It was the kind of upbringing that leaves a boy with two options: stay at home and mend nets, or go to sea.

Garibaldi went to sea.

By his late twenties, Giuseppe had sailed the Black Sea, the eastern Mediterranean and beyond. He had also encountered the ideas of the Risorgimento through a man named Giuseppe Mazzini, whose vision of a unified, republican Italy had a profound effect on Garibaldi.

They say fail your way to success, and Garibaldi did just that.

In his first attempted revolution in 1834, Giuseppe convince himself that a mutiny within the Piedmontese (Sardinian) Navy might trigger a republican uprising.

It didn’t.

It did, however, trigger a trial for treason in absentia and a subsequent death sentence.

Garibaldi had other plans. He fled his homeland and spent twelve years in South America between 1836 and 1848, fighting first for rebels in Brazil and then for Uruguay. In the process, he perfected the hit-and-run tactics that would make his name.

Giuseppe’s South American exploits didn’t go unnoticed. Reports from Brazil and Uruguay filtered back through European papers. He was unwittingly acquiring the aura of a celebrity.

One of his more enthusiastic supporters was the author of The Three Musketeers, Alexandre Dumas, who met Giuseppe in Montevideo around 1847.

When Dumas returned to Europe, he enthusiastically promoted Garibaldi to anyone who cared to listen—particularly within his Parisian literary and intellectual circles.

Revolution in the air

Garibaldi’s 1848 return coincided with a revolutionary wave breaking across Europe. In typical fashion, he threw himself into confrontation at the first opportunity.

By November, Pope Pius IX had fled Rome in disguise as the nationalist mood turned against him. Mazzini prepared to defend the newly proclaimed Roman Republic against a French expedition sent by Napoleon III to restore the Papacy.

The Risorgimento movement wasn’t anti-Catholic, it just didn’t agree with the Catholic Church running central Italia as its personal kingdom.

As expected, Garibaldi joined Mazzini and fought brilliantly against the odds, but lost anyway.

His Brazilian revolutionary wife, Anita, died during the desperate retreat through the marshes of Romagna. Giuseppe buried her himself, alone, and carried on.

With the French, Austrian, Spanish and Neapolitan armies in pursuit, Garibaldi prudently sought another sabbatical in America, this time in New York City, where he spent the best part of two years making candles on Staten Island.

The flame of Italian nationalism was still burning, but, at that particular moment, probably not in a way that Garibaldi could have imagined.

This second catastrophic failure still didn’t diminish Garibaldi’s standing. If anything, his star shone even brighter. His causes were seen as just and he fought with extraordinary physical courage. Writers such as Dumas and Victor Hugo—author of The Hunchback of Notre-Dame and later Les Misérables—needed little encouragement to champion the romantic hero.

Even Abraham Lincoln had sounded Garibaldi out regarding a possible command in the Union Army. He declined. He had Italia to think about.

I Mille —1860

In the spring of 1860, Giuseppe’s patience paid off.

A revolt had flared up in Sicily against the highly unpopular Bourbon King of the Two Sicilies, Francis II. The revolt was faltering.

Garibaldi, now fifty-two years old, struggling with arthritis and with a white beard tucked behind his poncho and red shirt, decided that this was his moment.

On the evening of 5 May 1860, he gathered roughly a thousand men from Quarto, near Genoa—‘I Mille’, ‘The Thousand’—and slipped out to sea. They wore red shirts, carried whatever weapons they could lay their hands on and headed out to challenge a Bourbon army tens of thousands strong.

What followed was one of the most extraordinary military campaigns of the nineteenth century.

Garibaldi landed at Marsala on Sicily’s western tip in May 1860, and within weeks had routed the Bourbon forces at Calatafimi. His ragbag army of volunteers attacked uphill against professional soldiers and fortified defences with such ferocity that the Bourbon troops simply broke.

When one of his officers remarked that it looked impossible, Garibaldi allegedly replied:

Qui si fa l’Italia o si muore

“Here we make Italy—or we die.”

By early June, Garibaldi had taken Palermo. By August, he crossed to the Italian mainland.

The Bourbon kingdom was collapsing faster than anyone had dared hope. Naples fell with hardly a whimper in September. Garibaldi rode into the city in an open carriage through jubilant crowds. The king had already left.

Then Garibaldi astonished everyone.

The move that led to the unification of Italy

Mazzini pressed him to proclaim a republic—it was, after all, everything they had both fought for. Instead, Garibaldi handed everything he had conquered—the whole magnificent, hard-won southern peninsula—to Victor Emmanuel II, the King of Sardinia.

The revolutionary gave his revolution to a king.

Garibaldi was a fearless fighter, but he was also a realist. He knew that a republican Italy born out of his army would have been too fragile to face the inevitable fury of France and Austria.

Conversely, King Victor Emmanuel II already had an army, a functioning government and diplomatic relationships with the great European powers.

Better a united Italy under a monarch than a failed republic.

On 17 March 1861, the newly assembled Italian Parliament in Turin proclaimed the Kingdom of Italy, with Victor Emmanuel II as its first king.

​
FOOTNOTE
Garibaldi was not entirely done. The Kingdom of Italy had been declared in 1861 but Rome and the Venetian lands remained stubbornly outside it.

So he made further attempts to take Rome. His two failed excursions in 1862 and 1867 proved a little awkward as he ended up fighting against his own Italian government, which was terrified of upsetting the French.

Rome fell when the French were called home to face the Franco-Prussian war in 1870. The Italian army simply moved in.

As for Pope Pius IX, he withdrew into the Vatican and denounced the new Italian state until his death eight years later. The Vatican became an independent state in 1929 through an agreement with the future fascist dictator Benito Mussolini.

Vatican City was born.

Venice ‘came good’ in 1866, less through Garibaldian aggression than through Prussia’s defeat of Austria, after which Venetia was handed to Italy as part of the peace.

Trentino and South Tyrol—the Alpine regions bordering Austria and Switzerland—weren’t incorporated until after World War One in 1919, fulfilling promises made to Italy in return for joining the Allies in 1915.

Trieste and Istria followed the same logic: promised to Italy in 1915 and awarded after the war, though the ink didn’t dry on the paperwork until 1954.

The unification of Italy was complete.

Out of Curiosity

After unification, Garibaldi embarked on a number of triumphant tours across Europe.

In Britain, moving Garibaldi from place to place became a logistical nightmare. Processions were regularly halted and rerouted while Victorians abandoned all dignity and behaved like screaming fans at a pop concert.

Europe’s high society found the persona a little too much, but the public couldn’t get enough of him.

Which brings me back to the humble Garibaldi biscuit.

Giuseppe Garibaldi died on 2 June 1882, at the age of seventy-four, on his island of Caprera. He had spent his life fighting for the underdog, the forgotten and the overlooked. Perhaps a biscuit that nobody notices at the bottom of the tin is an entirely appropriate tribute after all.​

Thank you for joining me.

Steve
HOST & CHIEF STORY HUNTER

ATTRIBUTIONS
Giuseppe Garibaldi: Davide Mauro, CC BY-SA 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons.
I Mille: sconosciuto, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons.
Sign for the Garibaldi: Bourne End by JThomas, CC BY-SA 2.0, via Wikimedia Commons.
Garibaldi biscuit: James F. Carter, CC BY-SA 2.5, via Wikimedia Commons.
Kingdom of Italy: Artemka, CC BY-SA 3.0, via Wikimedia Commons.
Garibaldi’s poncho: Stefano Stabile, CC BY-SA 3.0, via Wikimedia Commons.
Royal Procession: Carlo Bossoli, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons.

CC0: ​https://creativecommons.org/public-domain/cc0/​
CC BY 4.0: ​https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 ​
CC BY-SA 3.0: ​https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0 ​
CC BY-SA 2.0: ​https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0​
CC BY-ND 4.0: ​https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/
CC BY-SA 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

(Read time: 11 mins.)

Australian independence from Britain: the story of the longest, and arguably most amicable, divorce in the history of the British Empire. No war of independence. No declaration of grievances. Not even raised voices.

The United States’ Declaration of Independence in 1776 was, in essence, a succession of grievances against King George III—a catalogue of ‘repeated injuries and usurpations’ that, in effect, shows how he had quashed the rights of the colonists.

The Declaration was a resignation letter. It was also the founding charter of the most powerful nation on earth.

The thirteen American colonies’ break with the British Empire was, by any measure, a dramatic exit—a story of passion and principle played out in blood, leaving tens of thousands dead.

The 1783 Treaty of Paris made the separation formal, the last British troops went home, and that was that.

Within eight years, it was over.

But there was another British colony that would eventually leave the fold—and it did so by entirely different means. No war of independence. No declaration of grievances. Not even raised voices.

Australia’s journey from the arrival of Captain Cook to full legal independence took 216 years. Britain didn’t push and Australia didn’t pull. They simply drifted apart, politely.

This is the story of the longest, and arguably most amicable, divorce in the history of the British Empire.

1770—Terra Australis Incognita

In August 1768, a 41-year-old naval lieutenant named James Cook sailed from Plymouth in HMS Endeavour, officially bound for the Pacific to observe the transit of Venus.

However, his second—hush hush—objective was to search for Terra Australis Incognita—the ‘Unknown Southern Land’ that many Europeans believed must have existed in the far south to ‘balance’ the globe.

On 29 April 1770, Endeavour dropped anchor in a broad, sheltered bay on the east coast of a vast landmass that Cook took to be part of that southern continent.

The ship’s naturalist, Joseph Banks, was astonished by the richness of the flora and soon had his party busily pressing and cataloguing specimens from the bay.

Cook named it Botany Bay.

After a week collecting specimens and attempting to communicate with the indigenous Gweagal people—less than enthusiastic hosts, it has to be said—Cook sailed north.

Near the northern tip of the continent, Cook stepped ashore on what he named Possession Island, raised the British flag and formally claimed the entire eastern coastline for King George III.

Had the locals who’d been living on that coastline for fifty millennia understood what Cook was doing with his flag, they might have wondered what exactly had just been found.

Back in London, the claim was noted and shelved.

By 1783, with the American colonies gone, Britain’s jails were filling up fast. Somewhere new was needed for the burgeoning roster of convicts—a problem, as it happens, that the UK still has today.

Botany Bay, it was decided, would do. Cook’s claim from thirteen years earlier was picked off the shelf, dusted down, and put to use.

1787—Arthur Phillip’s First Fleet

In May 1787, a fleet of eleven ships left Portsmouth carrying 620 marines, officers and crew, about 750 convicts and a handful of free settlers. Their task at the end of a 15,000-mile journey… to establish a penal colony at Botany Bay.

Having arrived in January 1788, Arthur Phillip, commander of the First Fleet, decided that Botany Bay was unsuitable. Poor soil, exposed anchorage, unreliable water.

He loaded a few officers into a small boat and rowed twenty miles up the coast to inspect a harbour Cook had charted but never actually entered. What he found stopped him in his tracks.

Phillip later wrote that it was, without exception, the finest harbour he had ever seen. He named the landing place Sydney Cove, after Lord Sydney, the Home Secretary who had organised the whole enterprise.

On 26 January 1788, Phillip raised the Union Jack.

1824—“Australia”

Matthew Flinders was a British navigator and cartographer who led the first circumnavigation of Australia, finally establishing that it was a single continent during his voyage on HMS Investigator between 1801 and 1803.

The Dutch had been coasting along its western and northern shores for over 200 years, but their priorities were seeking trading opportunities rather than claiming new territory. They had named the land New Holland.

In his work ‘A Voyage to Terra Australis’, published on the very day he died in 1814, Flinders urged that the continent be called Australia—a name he considered far more fitting and elegant than New Holland.

In December 1817, Governor Lachlan Macquarie of New South Wales wrote to officials in London recommending that the name ‘Australia’ be adopted. The imperial machinery, never in much of a hurry, finally agreed in 1824.

Australia it was.

The six colonies

The naming of Australia in 1824 seemed to trigger a growth spurt. New South Wales had been around since Arthur Phillip arrived in 1788, but now the rest of the continent began to fill in.

Van Diemen’s Land, the grim island penal settlement to the south, became the separate colony of Tasmania in 1825. It would become two penal colonies for the price of one.

Western Australia followed in 1829, proudly planting itself on the opposite coast as the convict-free Swan River Colony, having the added advantage of discouraging the French from helping themselves to the west coast.

South Australia arrived in 1836 as something of a social experiment—proclaiming itself a province and founded without a convict in sight.

Victoria was carved from the southern end of New South Wales in 1851 and struck gold almost immediately, briefly making it the richest colony on the continent, a fact Victorians have never been shy about mentioning.

Finally, Queensland split from New South Wales in the north in 1859. With that, the colonial map was more or less complete.

Convict transportation continued until 1868, by which point around 160,000 people had been shipped from Britain.

By the late nineteenth century, each of the six colonies had been granted responsible self-government by the British Parliament.

Running their own affairs, but still British colonies and still under the Crown.

Out of Curiosity

The Australian gold rushes of the 1850s helped trigger a scramble to lay rails across the colonies. In 1848, British Colonial Secretary Earl Grey instructed the Australian colonies to adopt a single rail gauge. Everyone agreed.

Then New South Wales changed its mind. Then changed it back.

Victoria, which had already ordered its locomotives from England, pressed ahead with a broader gauge. South Australia followed.

Queensland, eyeing the bill, went narrower because it was cheaper. Western Australia and Tasmania arrived fashionably late to the party and did the same.

Six colonies, three railway gauges. By the early twentieth century, travelling from Brisbane to Perth meant changing trains six times.

The ‘glorious bungle’ was complete.

The final works that completed a continuous, standard-gauge rail spine from the south to the north coast were finished in 2004–175 years after Australia’s first tracks were laid.

Railway buffs claim that today’s national railway gauge traces back to Roman times. “It is the same width as a chariot—two horses stood side by side”.

It really shouldn’t have been so difficult after all. ​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

By the late nineteenth century, a more pressing worry than railway gauges was taking shape. Germany was planting flags and trading posts across the South Pacific, while Japan was beginning to push its frontiers south.

The defence of the realm was at stake.

Six small colonial forces, each with its own laws, budgets and equipment, did not add up to a convincing deterrent. Something would have to change.

One Country.

1901—Federal Commonwealth of Australia

After twenty years of debate, conventions and a series of colonial referendums, the Commonwealth of Australia was proclaimed on 1 January 1901, in front of 100,000 spectators in and around Centennial Park in Sydney.

Six colonies became six states.

Edmund Barton was sworn in as the first Prime Minister. Lord Hopetoun became the first Governor-General, the Crown’s man on the ground. The Union Jack remained on the flag. The British monarch remained head of state.

It was independence of a sort; quiet, unhurried and largely in the mind. The paperwork still needed to catch up.

Two months later, 1 March 1901, the Commonwealth Military Forces (the land forces of the new Australian Commonwealth) were formally established.

In one movement, the colonial forces were folded into a single command. The individual units still wore slightly different uniforms and carried slightly different equipment. But they now answered to one government.

Australia now had the furniture of nationhood. A parliament. A constitution. An army. However, the constitution was technically a British Act of Parliament, with certain state laws requiring approval from the Crown.

No Australian citizenship though... Australians were still British subjects. The lawyers, it was clear, were not quite finished.

1916—Gallipoli

The Australian nation was born in a federation ceremony in 1901, but it crystallised when it sent its young men to die on a beach in Turkey fourteen years later.

In the spring of 1915, during the First World War, Australian troops landed with their allies on the narrow Gallipoli peninsula in a failed attempt to punch a way through Ottoman-held Turkey and open the sea route beyond.

It should have been a Churchillian masterstroke that shortened the war. Instead, the Gallipoli campaign lasted eight months, went nowhere strategically, and cost more than 55,000 Allied lives—and over 85,000 Ottoman lives besides.

Among the dead were 8,700 Australians, men who’d barely heard of Gallipoli, let alone could have pointed to it on a map.

Yet amid the disaster, something extraordinary emerged. The ANZAC* soldiers demonstrated a unique, stubborn, improvised courage. Back home, Australians followed every dispatch and recognised something of themselves in what they read. Not British. Not colonial subjects doing their imperial duty. Something new.

Out of the tragedy of Gallipoli, the Australian nation had come of age.

1942—Nearly there

The process continued, incrementally, for another eighty years. The Statute of Westminster in 1931—formally adopted by Australia in 1942—largely ended British legislative power over the Commonwealth of Australia. However, the constitution was still caught in a web of residual imperial law.

My father served in the Australian Army towards the end of World War II in Papua New Guinea. He came to England for the Queen’s coronation in 1953… and the rest is history. I still keep a stash of his renewed passports from over the years. Dad’s 1966 and 1971 passports refer to him as an Australian Citizen and a British Subject. By the time of his 1976 renewal, he was solely an Australian citizen.

But even then, the constitution remained interwoven with Britain’s. By the 1980s, Australia was a confident, prosperous nation of 16 million people. The ongoing constitutional pickle needed to be sorted once and for all.

1986—Free at last

Queen Elizabeth II signed the Proclamation of the Australia Act at Government House in Canberra on 2 March 1986, and handed the original document to Prime Minister Bob Hawke.

The Act—or rather, seven separate Acts—came into force the following day and severed all remaining legal ties between the two countries.

No British law could apply in Australia. The High Court of Australia became the final word on Australian law. Australia was now a sovereign, independent and federal nation.

I was in Australia in 1986, travelling up the east coast from Melbourne into northern Queensland. There were no fireworks. No parades. No declarations read aloud in a public square. No gloating. In fact, no one even mentioned the cutting of the last legal tie to Britain.

The Queen had signed a document, handed it over, and—two hundred and sixteen years after James Cook first landed at Botany Bay—that was that.

Read more

(read time: 9 mins.)

To clear up the maths, Arthur Priest had survived two crippling collisions and four sinkings in his short nine-year career at sea. In that time, he had been torpedoed, mined, shelled, rammed… and iced. Cats have nine lives, Priest had already used up six.

There is a particular kind of bad luck that attaches itself to certain people and simply refuses to let go.

I have previously written about Roy Sullivan, a Shenandoah National Park ranger in Virginia, who somehow survived being struck by lightning seven times.

I’ve also shared the story of Tsutomu Yamaguchi, a marine engineer, who survived the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, caught the train home to Nagasaki, and survived an atomic bomb there too.

More recently, Melanie Martinez of Braithwaite, Louisiana, lost her house to Hurricane Betsy in 1965. Then to Hurricane Juan in 1985. Then to Hurricane Georges in 1998 and to Hurricane Katrina in 2005. In 2012, a reality television crew arrived and spent $20,000 renovating her home. Eight days after they left, Hurricane Isaac flattened it.

Arthur John Priest

For Arthur John Priest from Southampton, England, luck was less a bolt from the blue than a slow, persistent tide—a relentless companion.

Whether it was good or bad rather depends on your point of view and, one suspects, on whether you were the one being fished out of the North Sea at the time.

Priest was born in August 1887, the ninth of twelve children in a working-class family headed by his father Harry, a labourer.

Southampton in the late Victorian era was a city defined by the sea. The docks were the city. They were the jobs, the identity, the backbone of the local economy.

If you were a young working-class man in Southampton at the turn of the twentieth century, the sea would eventually claim you one way or another.

For Arthur Priest, that meant going to sea as a stoker on passenger liners.
​

​

The Black Gangs

Nineteenth century engine-room crews of the great steam liners were called the black gangs—men who spent their working lives in the bowels of a ship, stripped to the waist in ferocious heat, shovelling coal into furnaces around the clock.

On the big ocean liners, 29 boilers cried out for 600 tons of coal every single day.

The work was brutal, the noise deafening. The air was constantly filled with the smell of coal dust, engine oil and sweat. It was thankless work: not glamorous, not celebrated, not even particularly well paid, but essential.

Without the black gangs, the great liners wouldn’t move.

In terms of safety, the stokers were in the worst place imaginable; in the depths of the ship far below the waterline, connected to the upper decks by a maze of gangways, corridors and companionways. In other words—a very long way from a lifeboat.

This was Arthur Priest’s world.

HMS Alcantara

Priest had been at sea for six years when the First World War broke out in 1914.

The Royal Navy needed ships. Specifically, it needed vessels to sweep 200,000 square miles of the North Sea to strangle Germany’s access to Atlantic trade routes.

This meant commandeering passenger liners, stripping out the chandeliers, bolting on some guns and sending them back to sea as Armed Merchant Cruisers—keeping many of the crews who had signed up to serve canapés, not their country.

HMS Alcantara, a handsome Royal Mail liner, had only been in service for a few months when the Admiralty came calling.

Arthur Priest was on board as a coal stoker.

By 1916, the British naval blockade had tightened its grip on Germany’s jugular. Much of its merchant shipping was bottled up in port and civilians were feeling the squeeze of real shortages.

Desperate situations need desperate measures. The Germans needed ‘raiders’ to get in amongst the British shipping in the open Atlantic and create havoc.

One such raider was SMS Greif. A former German-Australian cargo steamer, she sailed under the name Rena, flying Norwegian colours and displaying Norwegian markings on her hull.

To all intents and purposes, she was a harmless Scandinavian cargo ship going about her business. She was not.

Hidden behind false walls and removable panels, the Greif carried one 105mm gun, four 150mm guns and two torpedo tubes. The idea was simple: let any British inspection party get close enough and then let ‘em have it.

On 29 February 1916, HMS Alcantara was patrolling northeast of the Shetland Islands when her lookouts spotted smoke on the horizon.

Captain Thomas Wardle manoeuvred to investigate. At 5,000 yards, he ordered the vessel to stop for inspection. The Rena obligingly did so.

Alcantara closed to 2,000 yards. Then, at nine forty in the morning, Greif made her move.

The Norwegian ensign came down. The steering house at her stern vanished in favour of the 105mm gun. Along both sides of the steamer, hidden gun ports fell open.

Greif opened fire. The first shell struck the Alcantara’s bridge, taking out her steering gear and all lines of communication.

Down in the engine room, Arthur Priest felt the impact of those first shells before he heard anything. Then the alarm, the rush of orders, the flooding.

The visceral urge to get out of the stokehold must have been overwhelming.

For about fifteen minutes, the two ships hammered each other at close range—sometimes as little as 750 yards, which in naval terms is practically a bar fight.

The German ship had got her torpedoes away and one hit Alcantara amidships on the port side. The engine room began flooding. She slowed to three knots and began listing heavily to port.

At 11:02 in the morning, HMS Alcantara rolled over and sank, taking 68 crew with her.

The destroyer HMS Munster arrived as the Alcantara went down, pulling survivors from the water. Priest had successfully negotiated those gangways and corridors, managing to escape with nothing more than a few shrapnel wounds.

This was no victory for the Greif—she too was finished. Riddled with shells and ablaze, she succumbed to the weight of fire from arriving British warships.

By the end of the day, both ships were gone.

The Britannic

Nine months later, November 1916, Priest was back at work. This time in the boiler room of HMHS Britannic—the infamous Titanic’s younger sister ship and currently one of the largest hospital ships in the fleet. The war was still raging.

HMHS Britannic was on her way to the Mediterranean to collect casualties. On the 21st, near the Greek island of Kea, Britannic struck a mine.

Once again, Priest fought his way up from the lower decks. He reached a lifeboat—just as it was dragged into the still-turning propellers. He jumped. The water closed over him.

The blades spun him like a rag doll and moments later he resurfaced into a tangle of wreckage and bodies. A drowning man grabbed at him. He shook him off.

HMHS Britannic sank in under an hour. Thirty people died. Priest survived.

In Oscar Wilde’s The Importance of Being Earnest, when confronted with Jack Worthing’s orphaned childhood, Lady Bracknell sniffs…

​
You wonder what Lady Bracknell would have made of Arthur Priest. His crew mates christened him The Unsinkable Stoker. Others called him Jonah. Some refused to sail with him altogether.

The Donegal

Four months later, April 1917, Priest was serving as a fireman aboard the hospital ship SS Donegal, crossing the English Channel, when she was torpedoed by a German U-boat and sunk.

This time, Priest didn’t escape entirely unscathed. However, despite being pulled under by the suction, he came up under wreckage in the water, suffering a serious head injury.

At this point, you can see that Arthur John Priest was developing a rather complicated relationship with the sea. Saner men would have moved to the Midlands and found a desk job.

If you were in Priest’s stoker boots, would these three sinkings have caused you to reconsider your career choice?

Before you answer, I should come clean—there’s more.

RMS Asturias and RMS Olympic

In fact, Priest’s first brush with disaster came before the war even started. In 1908, his first ship, RMS Asturias, managed to collide with another vessel on her maiden voyage. Nobody died and the ship limped home. As a career opener, it wasn’t particularly encouraging.

Three years later, in September 1911, Priest was serving aboard the RMS Olympic—the other sibling of the RMS Titanic.

Read more

(read time: 8 mins.)

On 30 May 1431, Joan of Arc was burned at the stake in the Old Market Square in Rouen. She was nineteen years old. The charges against her ran from heresy and sorcery to what the judges treated as most damning of all: her stubborn insistence on wearing men’s clothing.

Domrémy-la-Pucelle sits in the Vosges region of northeastern France—a village so small that even today it barely troubles the mapmakers.

Fewer than a hundred inhabitants are scattered along the River Meuse, hemmed in by oak woods, cultivated fields and pocket-sized vineyards.

In 1412 it was simply Domrémy, a frontier settlement caught in the crossfire of a conflict that had dragged on for 75 years.

The Hundred Years’ War between England and France was raging. Domrémy found itself in a region hotly contested between the Anglo-Burgundian alliance and the Dauphin, the future French king Charles VII.

​

Jeanne Darc

In that year, 1412, a peasant farmer from Domrémy, Jacques Darc, and his wife Romée had a daughter. Her name was Jeanne.

Jeanne’s parents raised five children in an era when surviving itself was an achievement.

Life in medieval Domrémy was grim enough. Homes ran to one or two rooms with dirt floors, made grimmer still by the livestock often sharing the space.

Most villagers were subsistence farmers who handed over roughly a third of their earnings to the local lord and the church. Peasants worked the fields from dawn to dusk. If they made it to forty-five, they counted themselves fortunate before dysentery or plague caught up with them.

Women could add childbirth to that list.

The typical diet was bread, watery stew (or pottage) and a little bit of cheese. Meat was a luxury reserved for feast days. Entertainment ran to Church festivals, the occasional wedding and swapping stories about whose cow had died most dramatically.

Joan of Arc hears voices

Joan grew up like any other village girl. She tended sheep and spun wool. Staying alive mattered more than reading or writing, which nobody bothered with anyway.

She was also exceptionally pious—though so were half the village, there was little else to distract them. But at thirteen, something changed. Jeanne (known today by the English ‘Joan’) started hearing voices.

At first, the voices offered Joan general spiritual guidance. Over time, though, the messages grew more specific.

It turned out that Saint Michael, Saint Catherine and Saint Margaret had strong opinions about French military strategy. The saints urged her to rise up and drive the English out of France.

Joan kept these celestial briefings to herself until she was seventeen. Then the voices insisted she could wait no longer.

​

​

After two years of trying, Joan finally persuaded the local garrison commander to give her safe passage to Chinon in February 1429.

There she would present herself to the Dauphin—the heir-apparent son of Charles the Mad, who had disinherited him in favour of Henry V and his heirs.

Even in the territory the Dauphin controlled, he couldn’t be anointed king: Anglo-Burgundian forces held Reims, where French kings had been crowned for centuries.

For a teenage peasant girl in 1425, this would be quite the career pivot.

Through what must rank among history’s greatest sales pitches, Joan convinced the Dauphin to let her lead troops to Orléans where the English had held the city under siege for nearly six months.

Joan d’Arc heads for Orléans

French morale was low. The situation looked hopeless.

Then Joan arrived in white armour, carrying a banner emblazoned with the names of Jesus and Mary. She didn’t so much command the troops as inspire them into a religious frenzy.

She was Joan…. Joan d’Arc.

When the French launched their attack on Les Tourelles in May 1429, the fighting was brutal. Joan was in the thick of it, armed with nothing but her banner. On the third day, an arrow punched through her shoulder between neck and collarbone.

She was carried from the field. But when Joan overheard the commanders discussing retreat, she hauled herself up, returned to the fight and rallied the troops again.

​

​

The next day, the English siege broke. The victory at Orléans on 8 May 1429 became the stuff of legend.

On 17 July 1429, the Dauphin became Charles VII, crowned in Reims Cathedral, with Joan of Arc—the Maid of Orléans—standing close by, banner in hand.

Joan is captured and put on trial

At this point, Joan should have gone home. But she didn’t.

Joan fought on, leading an ill‑fated assault on Paris in September 1429. The attack failed and she was wounded again. Her voices, she claimed, had warned her she wouldn’t live long. They were right.

In May 1430, during a skirmish at Compiègne, Joan was captured by Burgundian troops who promptly sold her to the English.

The English wanted her dead, but they faced a problem. They needed an excuse that wouldn’t inadvertently create a martyr.

They needed to discredit her first, and by extension, Charles VII’s crown.

​

​

Joan of Arc’s trial started the following January in Rouen, the capital of English-occupied France. Her first public interrogation started 595 years ago this coming Saturday, 21 February 1431.

The proceedings were a masterclass in medieval legal gymnastics. Joan, still a teenager, faced a panel of dozens of theologians and legal scholars. She had no lawyer, no advocate, no one to advise her.

Who’s wearing the trousers?

The charges ran from heresy and sorcery to what the judges treated as most damning of all: her stubborn insistence on wearing men’s clothing.

The theological heavyweights at the trial devoted serious energy to the trouser question: Were they heretical?

Joan pointed out that she was less likely to be assaulted in breeches than in a dress. The scholars were unconvinced by her pragmatic approach to fashion.

Despite the hopelessness of her situation, the Maid of Orléans held her own. When asked if she knew she was in God’s grace, she gave one of history’s most elegant non-answers:

It was a perfect response. Saying “yes” would be presumptuous heresy. Saying “no” would be an admission of sin.

Nonetheless, the verdict was never in doubt.

On 24 May 1431, faced with the threat of immediate execution by burning, Joan recanted. She signed a document—with a cross since she couldn’t write—renouncing her voices and exchanging her soldier’s clothes for a woman’s dress.

She was sentenced to perpetual confinement.

However, three days later, Joan appeared again in male attire, claiming that promises had been broken and she was ‘still chained among men’. The court had no choice but to declare her a relapsed heretic.

Read more

(read time: 10 mins.)

On 10 February 1906, Admiral Fisher stood beside King Edward VII at Portsmouth Dockyard, watching as the last blocks were knocked away. The King reached for that bottle and swung it against her bow. The 18,000-ton vessel slid into the Solent, stirring up waves that would be felt around the world.

We know that every object tells a story. That doesn’t necessarily mean we’re motivated to investigate every object we see.

Growing up, my parents’ house was full of things that had simply always been there. I walked past them every day for years without wondering where they came from or why they mattered: a black and white photograph in a frame, an ornament gathering dust, a print of an old master.

And then there was that small, dark leather box on the mantlepiece.

Years later, I discovered a handwritten note by my grandmother mentioning ‘an empty valve box which was to hold a crystal used for detecting and receiving wireless signals‘.

She was referring to that dark leather box. It turned out to be the property of the Imperial German Navy during World War I.

The question is, how did it end up on our mantlepiece?

​

​

The story begins on a cold February morning in 1906 at Portsmouth Dockyard on the south coast of England. Sixty thousand people had gathered to witness something extraordinary.

King Edward VII stood ready with a bottle of Australian sparkling wine, preparing to christen the most revolutionary warship the world had ever seen.

He swung the bottle against the bow. It bounced back. He swung again. This time it shattered.

​

John Arbuthnot Fisher

The man standing beside the King that day, watching his monumental, steel vision become reality, was Admiral John Arbuthnot Fisher.

‘Jackie’ Fisher was born in 1841 in Ceylon (present-day Sri Lanka), just as Queen Victoria’s reign was gathering momentum and the British Empire was spreading unchecked across the globe.

He was about five feet seven inches tall, ‘stocky, with a round face and a fixed, compelling gaze’. Jackie’s parents were British, though some later suggested Asian ancestry due to his distinctive features and yellow-tinged skin.

The truth was simpler: dysentery and malaria in middle life had nearly killed him.

At thirteen, Fisher joined the Royal Navy. It was 1854.

​

​

By the 1860s, Jackie had made his name as a champion of torpedo technology. While stationed in China, he installed the first electrical firing system on any Royal Navy warship.

The more conservative admirals weren’t impressed. Torpedoes, they sniffed, were ‘underhand and un-British‘.

Fisher didn’t care.

The two-power standard

In 1899, Jackie Fisher was appointed commander-in-chief of the Mediterranean Fleet, and by 1904 he had been promoted to First Sea Lord, head of the Royal Navy.

It was perfect timing. The world was shifting. Germany, under Kaiser Wilhelm II, had been expanding its navy since 1898 to stake a claim as a global power.

The British clung to their long-standing ‘two-power standard’, meaning the Royal Navy should outnumber the combined fleets of any two other powers. That policy was under pressure.

Fisher wasn’t intoxicated by a desire for quantity. He wanted quality. He knew that overwhelming firepower, range and speed were the keys to winning on the high seas.

The first Dreadnought

Fisher demanded the impossible.

He wanted a ship with ten 12-inch guns in five twin turrets—raw destructive power. She would have steam turbine propulsion—unprecedented in a large warship—and a speed of 21 knots.

And most ambitiously of all, Fisher wanted her built in twelve months. The typical battleship took around 2½ years to complete.

The keel was laid at Portsmouth Dockyard on 2 October 1905. Three thousand men would work a punishing 69-hour week—six days straight, 6 a.m. to 6 p.m., with compulsory overtime and a 30-minute lunch break.

By day 125—just four months after the keel was laid—the hull was finished.

​

…and so we return to that cold February morning in 1906—the launch.

On 10 February 1906, Admiral Fisher stood beside King Edward VII at Portsmouth Dockyard, watching as the last blocks were knocked away. The great hull hung on a single symbolic cable.

The King reached for that bottle—Irvine’s Victorian sparkling wine by later accounts—and swung it against her bow.

The 18,000-ton vessel slid into the Solent, stirring up waves that would be felt around the world.

She was 526 feet of revolutionary naval power and would carry a crew of 800. Her four propeller shafts, driven by steam turbines, would give her an unprecedented top speed of 21 knots. Those 12-inch guns could hurl 850-pound shells nearly ten miles.

She was HMS Dreadnought.

Poignantly, overlooking proceedings was HMS Victory—Lord Nelson’s flagship from the Battle of Trafalgar in 1805—serving out her days reduced to harbour duties.

In that moment, the old wooden warship and the revolutionary steel dreadnought, separated by a century of naval evolution, shared the same waters.

One represented Britain’s past naval supremacy; the other, its uncertain future.

​

​

HMS Dreadnought catalyses Britain’s naval decline

Paradoxically, Fisher’s masterstroke, HMS Dreadnought, may have accelerated Britain’s decline as a global power.

The fearsome ship had made Britain’s massive naval fleet almost obsolete overnight. The older vessels in the fleet became ‘pre-dreadnoughts’, relics of a bygone era.

Japanese, German and American navies—followed by other European powers—scrambled to build their own dreadnoughts.

Fisher had wiped the slate clean. The Empire’s naval dominance was suddenly under threat.

Despite the British government’s commitment to an ambitious shipbuilding program, Germany had narrowed Britain’s advantage by 1914.

The naval arms race unleashed by the HMS Dreadnought drained the treasury, fuelled tensions that helped tip Europe into war, and left Britain economically exhausted by 1918—victorious, but in no position to celebrate.

Fisher’s revolutionary warship had made Britain supreme at sea—but at a cost the Empire would struggle to afford.
​

​

​

​Admiral John Fisher’s death

Jackie Fisher died on 10 July 1920. His coffin, mounted on a gun carriage, was drawn through London’s streets to Westminster Abbey by bluejackets—ordinary sailors honouring their admiral.

Eight admirals acted as pallbearers, led by Admiral Jellicoe, commander of the Grand Fleet at the Battle of Jutland four years earlier in 1916.

Fisher’s ashes were later placed in the grave of his wife at Kilverstone, Norfolk, under a chestnut tree, overlooking the figurehead of his first seagoing ship, HMS Calcutta.

At the time of Fisher’s death, about 120 dreadnoughts had been launched worldwide. They would dominate the world’s navies for a further 25 years, evolving into massive ships capable of 32 knots—twice the speed of typical 1914 pre-dreadnoughts.

Fisher had started his career in a navy of wooden sailing ships armed with muzzle-loading cannons—the sort of vessels Nelson would have recognised.

He ended it commanding a navy of steel battlecruisers, submarines and the first aircraft carriers. Quite a transformation for one career.

​

​

​

…back to that dark leather valve box

The super-dreadnoughts inevitably followed—bigger and faster than the original HMS Dreadnought. One of those super-dreadnoughts was HMS Revenge, commissioned in 1916 with the 1st Battle Squadron and later serving as flagship.

She carried eight 15-inch guns, each of which could send a shell the size of a small car over 15 miles.

She was a leviathan of the sea.

​

​

My grandfather, Cecil Bottle, had run away from home at fourteen and enlisted in the Royal Navy. By 1916, he was serving as a telegraphist and fought in the infamous Battle of Jutland—the largest naval battle of World War I, where fifty-eight dreadnoughts and battlecruisers clashed in the North Sea.

By the end of the war, Cecil Bottle was serving aboard the mighty HMS Revenge.

Scapa Flow

On 21 November 1918, as part of the terms of the Armistice, the German fleet surrendered at the Firth of Forth in Scotland.

Over the next few days, they were escorted to Scapa Flow in the Orkney Islands to be detained during the peace negotiations at the Treaty of Versailles.

One of those escorts was HMS Revenge with Chief Telegraphist Cecil Bottle on board.

The Germans remained in control of their vessels but were closely guarded by the British 1st Battle Squadron.

For seven months, the German fleet sat at anchor while diplomats argued over the problem of what to do with them.

Then on 21 June 1919, with most of the British fleet conveniently away on exercises, Rear Admiral Ludwig von Reuter decided to solve the problem himself. He ordered his entire fleet scuttled; seacocks opened, compartments flooded.

​

​

It was the greatest act of naval self-destruction in history: fifty-two of the seventy-four interned ships slipping beneath the surface of Scapa Flow within hours.

Better to sink them in a Scottish anchorage than hand them over to the victors as trophies.

Cecil Bottle was sent on trips to many of these semi-submerged vessels to see if any radio equipment could be salvaged.

From an array of recovered radio equipment, he kept an empty valve box as a souvenir—a dark leather container that protected the crystals used in wireless sets to detect and receive signals.

Read more

(read time: 9 mins.)

Andrzej Tadeusz Bonawentura Kościuszko was born on 4 February 1746, in what was then the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, now modern-day Belarus. But what turned a minor nobleman from a Polish-Lithuanian backwater into someone remembered across three continents, from West Point to the Snowy Mountains?

A couple of years ago I chatted with Rebecca Bratspies for the Batting the Breeze podcast. Rebecca is a New York environmental and human rights lawyer who’d just written a wonderful book, ‘Naming Gotham—The Villains, Rogues and Heroes Behind New York’s Place Names’.*

Rebecca shared stories of well-known characters who have been commemorated through the bridges, tunnels, parkways, boulevards and parks of New York.

Our conversation centred on Jackie Robinson, who became the first Black Major League Baseball player in modern US history when he joined the Brooklyn Dodgers in 1947. The Kosciuszko Bridge was mentioned briefly, but we moved on.

Not long after, I was talking to my Australian cousin in Melbourne. He went to great lengths to convince me that there is fantastic skiing in the Kościuszko National Park, situated in the Snowy Mountains in the southeast corner of New South Wales.

I think a hardened skier more familiar with the steeps of Jackson Hole, the bowls of Whistler or the black runs at Val d’Isère, Zermatt or Alpe d’Huez might baulk at the word ‘fantastic’, but the point was made.

Inevitably, instead of the widely accepted ‘kosh-TCHYUUSH-koh‘ pronunciation, cousin Bren settled on ‘kozzy-osco‘—more reminiscent of a discount supermarket than a Polish national hero.

And then recently, a Polish friend mentioned the Kościuszko Mound in Kraków, Poland, a memorial to a Polish-Lithuanian military leader built between 1820 and 1823.

​

​

Three mentions turns out to be the magic number where my indifference transforms into investigative compulsion, a sort of historical tipping point where I stop grazing and start digging.

I had to find out who this chap was that people loved and remembered from the East Coast of the United States, across Europe and down to the southeast corner of Australia.

(*See Rebecca’s episode Beyond the Baseball Color Line.)

Andrzej Tadeusz Bonawentura Kościuszko

...was born 4 February 1746, in what was then the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, now modern-day Belarus. He was born out of minor nobility, comfortable enough to open the doors to education, but not wealthy enough to count as true aristocracy.

And, naturally, when you hear about someone like that, the first question isn’t so much what they did, but why? What lit the fuse? What turned a minor nobleman from a Polish-Lithuanian backwater into someone worth remembering on at least three continents?

Stage 1—belief

It turns out that Tadeusz’s eureka moment struck when he was packed off to the Catholic Piarist college in Lubieszów, where he became fascinated by the ancient Greeks and Romans.

In particular, he was obsessed by the story of Timoleon, a Greek statesman who freed the Corinthians and Sicilians from Carthaginian tyranny.

Tadeusz was nine years old.

In later years, when he was asked why Timoleon held such a strong hold on him, he said because... ‘he overthrew tyrants, set up republics and never demanded any power for himself’ .

​

​

That, at least, was the trigger. At the age of nineteen, just after Warsaw’s Corps of Cadets opened its doors, Kościuszko enrolled at the king’s military academy.

He impressed his teachers so much that, with backing from powerful royal patrons—the Czartoryski family—and a royal scholarship, he was packed off to Paris to continue his studies.

This was the European Age of Enlightenment with Paris at its pulsating centre. Here, Tadeusz immersed himself in the language of natural rights and popular sovereignty—the intoxicating world of Rousseau, Voltaire and John Locke, where freedom and dignity were universal birthrights, not aristocratic favours.

These ideas shaped everything that followed—they became the blueprint for his entire life.

While Tadeusz dutifully attended his art classes, he was also hiring private tutors and studying military engineering—specifically fortifications and military architecture, subjects not generally known for their sparkling dinner party potential.

Stage 2—circumstances

Back in Poland in 1774, Kościuszko made the mistake of falling for the wrong woman—Ludwika Sosnowska. Her father, the formidable General Joseph Sosnowski, took one look at the penniless military engineer and was spectacularly unimpressed.

When the young lovers attempted to elope, the enraged general gave chase. Tadeusz barely escaped with his dignity intact, fleeing back to France before the general could express his disapproval in more permanent terms.

As it turned out, By 1776, the French were glued to reports from America’s East Coast, where the colonials were picking a fight with the world’s most powerful empire.

For France’s intellectuals and chattering classes, it was irresistible—a real-life experiment in liberty… and a chance to watch Britain take a beating.

Louis XVI was cautious about backing a rebellion against the British. The optics were tricky—encouraging revolution might set a precedent he might live to regret. (Spoiler alert: it did.)

But Kościuszko wasn’t for waiting. He didn’t need the comfort blanket of official approval. He’d seen people fighting for liberty and concluded, with admirable simplicity, that he should probably help.

By the time Tadeusz had arrived in Philadelphia, the Thirteen American colonies, acting through the Second Continental Congress, had declared independence from Great Britain.

Stage 3—Carpe Diem

When Tadeusz arrived in 1776, he made a beeline for the ‘most famous American in the world’—Benjamin Franklin.

He walked into Franklin’s lodgings unannounced—no letter of introduction, no appointment, barely any English. Through some improvised French, Franklin gathered enough to recognise that this Polish engineer with the unpronounceable name might actually be useful to the revolution.

Armed with a recommendation from Benjamin Franklin, Kościuszko was then welcomed into the Continental Congress as an engineer with the rank of colonel. At that point, the revolutionaries were suffering a chronic shortage of trained engineers. Someone with an education in European military architecture was gold dust.

Stage 4—Execute at West Point

Within a year, Kościuszko’s early fortifications had caught the attention of George Washington, who wrote…

Well, ‘Cosieski’ was close enough I guess.

​

​

In March 1778, Washington awarded Kościuszko his most important assignment to date:

Fortify West Point on the Hudson River.

The mighty Hudson River stretches from New York City on the East coast all the way back through New York State to just 80 miles short of the Canadian border at Lake Henderson in the Adirondack Mountains.

With primitive roads, the Hudson was a liquid highway. Control the Hudson and you controlled the movement of troops, artillery and supplies.

From a British perspective, the Hudson River separated New England—the spark of the revolution north of the river—from the middle and southern colonies. The South provided food, raw materials and manpower.

Control the river, split the colonies in half and the rebellion would collapse.

From the American perspective, West Point represented the strategic pinch point of the river, an S-bend with prominent high ground all around—a natural fortress the Americans had so far failed to hold.

If Kościuszko could fortify the site properly, British ships would have to crawl upriver under a hail of cannonfire.

Instead of trying to build one mega-fort to defend the river, Kosciuszko built 30 individual forts and redoubts at different heights, overlapping each other. Any British attack by ship or land would face a gauntlet of cannon fire from multiple angles. It was almost impossible to breach.

Kościuszko’s solution was the first decentralised defensive fortification system in Western military history.

Kościuszko also supervised installation of the Great Chain—65 tons of iron stretched across 600 yards of river from West Point to Constitution Island, a physical barrier to block British ships from sailing further upstream.

In the end, the resourceful Pole’s fortifications worked perfectly—which is to say, West Point never fired a shot. The British took one look and stayed away.

​

​

​

Stage 5—Rinse & Repeat

Kościuszko returned to Poland in 1784 to find his country being methodically erased. The First Partition of 1772 had allowed Russia, Prussia and Austria to carve off pieces of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.

A second, more savage partition followed in 1792. Poland was being erased from existence. Kościuszko stepped forward.

On 24 March 1794, he stood in Kraków’s main square before an enormous crowd and took the oath as commander-in-chief of all Polish forces.

The Kościuszko Uprising had begun.

​

​

Kościuszko had the rare ability to unite peasants, soldiers and nobility in common cause. At the Battle of Racławice in April 1794, 2,000 scythe-wielding peasants fought alongside 4,000 regular troops and defeated the Russian army.

In their honour, Kościuszko addressed his army wearing a ‘sukmana’—traditional Polish peasant clothing.

That image—a Paris-educated engineer in peasant clothing—became the defining symbol of the uprising. Kościuszko wasn’t just honouring the farm workers; he was demolishing centuries of social hierarchy with a single costume change.

Inevitably, the uprising eventually collapsed. The Poles simply ran out of ammunition. Kościuszko, wounded and captured, was imprisoned in St. Petersburg while Warsaw fell. Russia, Prussia and Austria carved up what remained—Poland vanished from the map for 123 years.

Pardoned by Tsar Paul I, Kościuszko spent time in America before settling in Europe. When Napoleon offered him command of Polish forces in 1799, Tadeusz declined. He was done fighting.

Following complications from a fall from his horse, Tadeusz Kościuszko died in Solothurn, Switzerland, in October 1817. He was 71 years old.

​

​

Read more

(read time: 8 mins.)

Otto von Bismarck didn’t attempt to storm the city—he settled in for a siege, cutting off all supply routes. Nothing came in. Nothing went out. By late January, the situation had become unbearable. Bread rations were reduced to a bare minimum. Fuel was so scarce that Parisians were chopping down trees in the parks and burning their furniture. On 28 January 1871, an armistice was signed. The 132-day siege was over.

I turn on the news with trepidation these days. There will be talk of shifting power balances, the rise of new empires and the demise of others. I will hear about spheres of influence and redrawn borders. Alliances are made and unmade. World leaders reach for war-war before jaw-jaw.

It all feels rather modern and urgent.

But 155 years ago, Europe was playing the same game—just with different flags and rather more elegant moustaches.

The nation-state itself—that apparent timeless building block of international relations—is also a modern construction. For most of human history, people have identified with their city, religion or ruler, not with some abstract concept of national identity.

In 19th-century Europe, a cluster of forces had come together to change all that.

Centuries of printing had spread and standardised languages. Now, railways, steamships and telegraph lines weaved distant regions together, while the Industrial Revolution demanded much larger, integrated markets, protected by armies to match.

The idea that Italians should unite under one flag rather than remaining Venetians, Florentines or Neapolitans was bold—and to many, absurd. That Germans should prioritise being German over being Bavarian or Prussian was equally radical.

Someone had to be among the first architects of this new European order.

One of those architects turned out to be a Prussian aristocrat, Otto von Bismarck. He would seek to unite Germany through a masterclass in manufactured conflict.

Bismarck understood—as do many authoritarian leaders today—that to unite a nation, you needed to offer up a common enemy.

Otto Eduard Leopold von Bismarck…

…was born on 1 April 1815 in Schönhausen, Prussia. He came into this world less than three months before Napoleon Bonaparte’s final defeat at Waterloo.

The timing was poetic. Napoleon had spent nearly 20 years carving out a French‑dominated empire, marching across Europe in an attempt to bind reluctant peoples under French rule. He failed spectacularly.

Otto would use similar tools—war, diplomacy and pressure—to stitch together a patchwork of kingdoms, duchies and principalities into something that had never existed before: a unified Germany.

The map of Europe was about to be redrawn, and the baby born on April Fool’s Day would have the last laugh.

The Bismarck family were Prussian landed nobility (‘Junkers’), squires of the Schönhausen estate and part of the rural aristocracy that supplied so many officers and officials to the Prussian state.

Otto’s childhood was divided between his father’s country estate and his mother’s more polished, bureaucratic world in Berlin.

The young Bismarck was more suited to the former. At the universities of Göttingen and Berlin he studied law. He was marked as a capable student but also as a rebel. While studying, he drank, gambled and fought numerous duels.

Whatever his obvious gifts, Bismarck proved a mediocre lawyer and a less-than-exemplary estate manager. His heart was just not in it.

But then he pivoted into politics: a staunch conservative who defended the monarchy and aristocratic privileges against liberal reformers.

Bismarck’s strength… a sharp tongue and a brutal, mocking wit that reduced opponents to silence, akin to the cut-and-thrust of a Disraeli or Palmerston.

Postings to Frankfurt and then St Petersburg around 1860 transformed the brawling Junker into a European statesman. He understood how Europe’s great powers manoeuvred, negotiated and, when necessary, went to war.

Bismarck learned how to read the room. And that room was an entire continent.

Bismarck delivers “iron and blood”

In 1861, Wilhelm I became King of Prussia. He immediately faced a constitutional tangle over proposed military reforms. His plans were being blocked by the liberals.

Wilhelm needed a political plumber to unblock the deadlock. He needed Bismarck.

Within days of being appointed Minister President in 1862, Bismarck wasted no time in declaring that the great questions of the day would not be settled by speeches and majority votes, but by “iron and blood.”

Iron and blood it was. First came the Danish-Prussian War (1864). Then, the seven-week Austro-Prussian War (1866) when the Austrians were ejected from German politics entirely.

Which left France.

Bismarck would wait patiently for an opportunity to present itself. Like a crocodile at a waterhole, he lay in wait for the French to lean in for a drink, his eyes just above the waterline, ready to strike.

Four years had passed when a Prussian prince was offered the Spanish throne in 1870—Napoleon III’s nightmare scenario: France surrounded by German influence.

The Ems Despatch

On 13 July 1870, the French ambassador to Germany approached King Wilhelm while walking in the spa town of Ems to discuss the matter. The ambassador demanded that the Spanish offer should not be accepted. Wilhelm politely declined. The meeting was cordial and a telegram describing this civil exchange was sent to Bismarck.

The crocodile struck. Bismarck revised the telegram. He stripped out the courteous language, reducing the meeting to a stream of mutual abuse—the King dismissing the French ambassador with contempt, the ambassador storming off in outrage and so on.

Bismarck released the revised version to the press.

He had invented the rage-bait tweet, 150 years before ‘X-formerly known as Twitter’ existed. He understood what modern social media executives know instinctively: nothing spreads faster than manufactured outrage.

The doctored ‘Ems Dispatch’ went viral—via telegraph rather than retweet. Both sides’ honour was on the line. Within days, the French and Prussian public were baying for war.

France declared war on 19 July 1870.

The French expected a quick victory, but the Prussian military machine crushed their forces in a series of devastating battles. The Prussian army arrived at the gates of Paris on 19 September 1870 and encircled the city.

What followed was one of the most extraordinary sieges in modern history.

The Siege of Paris 1870-71

Paris in 1870 was Europe’s most glamorous city, home to two million people. The city prided itself on its cuisine, its culture, its sophistication. None of which prepared Parisians for what was coming.

The Prussians didn’t attempt to storm the city—they settled in for a siege, cutting off all supply routes. Nothing came in. Nothing went out.

Well, almost nothing.

The ingenious Parisians improvised a postal service using hot-air balloons. Two and a half million letters and—gloriously—one Interior Minister, Léon Gambetta, successfully drifted over the Prussian lines.

Some of the balloons landed in Belgium, one in Norway and two disappeared over the sea, though not Léon Gambetta, who landed safely near Tours in the Loire Valley, 150 miles southwest of Paris.

For the return post, the French used carrier pigeons. Tiny photographic reductions of messages—microfilm, essentially—were attached to the birds’ legs.

It was brilliantly innovative, but utterly useless for feeding two million people.

Parisians starve

By October, the food situation was becoming serious. By November, it was desperate. By December…

The butchers ran out of beef, then mutton, then pork. The price of horse meat skyrocketed. When they ran out of horses, Parisians ate donkeys. Then mules.

Then dogs and cats. Over time, rats became a delicacy. Restaurants served rat pie and pâtés de rat.

Even two elephants from a local zoo—Castor and Pollux—were slaughtered and sold to butchers. Apparently, trunk is a little tough and, at forty francs a pound, rather disappointing.

The absurdity reached its peak on Christmas Day 1870, when Voisin’s, one of Paris’s finest restaurants, served ‘stuffed donkey’s head, elephant consommé, roast camel, antelope terrine and bear chops in pepper sauce’.

Kangaroo stew was also on the menu, though it is not clear whether the marsupial came from the Jardin d’Acclimatation (i.e. the zoo) like the others, or whether it had inadvertently hopped over the siege wall in a moment of exceptionally poor navigation.

Prussian artillery bombarded the city. Civilians died and the psychological impact took its toll. Morale slumped. Deaths from malnutrition and disease climbed week by week.

The armistice that ended the Siege of Paris

By late January, the situation had become unbearable. Bread rations were reduced to a bare minimum. Fuel was so scarce that Parisians were chopping down trees in the parks and burning their furniture.

On 28 January 1871, an armistice was signed. The 132-day siege was over.

Many thousands of Parisians had died from disease, starvation and the odd shell burst.

Those who survived soon learned of Bismarck’s act of total humiliation ten days earlier. While they were eating rats and cutting down trees in the parks for firewood, he had staged the proclamation of Wilhelm I as Emperor of a new, unified German Empire.

But the performance wasn’t enacted in Berlin. Bismarck chose the ultimate symbol of French power and glory: the Palace of Versailles.

The Hall of Mirrors is a breathtaking space within the palace. Three hundred and seventeen chandeliers, 357 mirrors and ceiling paintings celebrating numerous military victories. It is a 73-metre corridor to French greatness.

And there, in the Hall of Mirrors, Wilhelm I was proclaimed German Emperor. Louis XIV’s monument to French prowess had hosted a German triumph while Paris was disintegrating.

The formal peace treaty, the Treaty of Frankfurt, was signed on 10 May 1871. France was broken.

Bismarck’s achievement was extraordinary. Through three short, carefully managed wars, he had united Germany, neutralised Austria and humiliated France. A collection of squabbling German states had become Europe’s newest great power.

But France never forgot. Never forgave.

Thank you for joining me.

Steve
HOST & CHIEF STORY HUNTER

ATTRIBUTIONS
Hall of Mirrors: Photo: Myrabella / Wikimedia Commons.
Voisin menu: Alexandre Étienne Choron, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons.
Proclamation of the German Empire: Anton von Werner, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons.
Otto von Bismarck: Bundesarchiv, Bild 183-R29818 / CC-BY-SA 3.0, CC BY-SA 3.0 DE, via Wikimedia Commons.
Wilhelm I: AnonymousUnknown author, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons.

CC BY-SA 3.0: ​https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0 ​
CC BY-SA 3.0 DE: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/de/deed.en

(read time: 6 mins.)

Empires were rarely built on fair play. The solution was elegantly simple, if morally bankrupt: create a market where none existed. To satisfy the British consumer’s addiction to tea, the Government would engineer a Chinese addiction to something far more potent—Opium. Conflict was inevitable. The First Opium War broke out on 4th September 1839.

Having watched rather too much David Attenborough over the festive break and convincing myself that microplastics were staging a hostile takeover of my internal organs—brain included—I did what any sensible person would do: I ditched the tea bags and bought a teapot together with some organic loose-leaf tea.

Terribly quaint. I hadn’t brewed a proper cup of tea since I was sixteen.

I kid you not, what a revelation. I’d forgotten how wonderful a decent cup of tea could taste. No bitterness, just the smooth, aromatic delivery of that daily fix we Brits have been imbibing since the mid-17th century.

​

The British tea drinking habit​

By the 1830s, the British were consuming 30 million pounds (in weight) of tea each year. That’s 6,000 of today’s London double-decker buses filled to the brim with leaves. Imagine the entire bus fleet trundling around London packed with Earl Grey instead of passengers.

In the 168 years since Charles II’s wife, Catherine of Braganza, had made tea a fashionable court beverage in 1662, it had trickled down from the aristocracy’s teacups into every working-class household in Britain.

On average, 5% of a worker’s wages were spent buying tea—the equivalent of a modern London bus driver handing over £1,650 a year for tea leaves.

Which brings me to an uncomfortable truth about addictions—someone always pays for them. It might seem a stretch to blame two Opium Wars on our national obsession with tea. But, indirectly, there it is.

​

​

Britain began sourcing tea from India in 1839. Up until that point, most of the tea imported was from China. This caused a problem. There was little that Britain produced that China wanted. While the Brits craved for tea, porcelain and silk, the Chinese saw British goods as ‘barbarian and inferior’. Apparently, they weren’t clamouring for heavy woollens, Protestant hymn books and boiled mutton.

Opium becomes Britain’s currency of exchange

For the most coveted goods, the Chinese would only accept silver. Britain’s reserves were haemorrhaging.

Empires, however, were rarely built on fair play. The solution was elegantly simple, if morally bankrupt: create a market where none existed. To satisfy the British consumer’s addiction to tea, the Government would engineer a Chinese addiction to something far more potent—Opium.

Using the British East India Company’s foothold in India, British authorities turned Bengal’s fields over to opium poppies. They sold the harvests to private traders who smuggled them into China. By 1838, 40,000 chests of opium a year were crossing the border.

​

​

By 1840, opium addiction had spread to government officials, the imperial court and even the ranks of the military.

Chinese buyers paid for the smuggled opium in silver. British merchants then used that same silver to buy the tea, silk and porcelain for shipment home. By the 1830s, opium revenues alone covered Britain’s entire tea habit.

The trade imbalance had been spectacularly reversed. As opium sales flourished, silver that once flowed out of Britain into China was now moving in the opposite direction.

This ‘silver drain’ accelerated as addiction spread. Families spent themselves into bankruptcy, children were left to fend for themselves and China drifted towards a social and economic abyss.

The Chinese dare to close down Britain’s illicit opium trade

Towards the end of 1838, Emperor Daoguang dispatched one of his most trusted officials, Lin Zexu, to shut down the trade. Lin set about the task with ruthless efficiency: 1,700 Chinese dealers arrested, thousands of opium pipes destroyed, foreign trading posts blockaded until merchants surrendered their entire stocks.

​

​

Charles Elliot, the British Chief Superintendent of Trade, was in a pickle. His blockaded staff had endured six weeks on warehouse scraps. Water was scarce, food supplies dwindling. On the bright side, they had plenty of tea. And twenty thousand chests of opium.

Elliot’s solution was as bold as it was unauthorised. He promised the British merchants that the government would compensate them for their opium if they surrendered it to Lin. They did.

Lin’s men spent three weeks destroying the opium. Crisis averted, everyone happy. Everyone except the British government, that is, which was incandescent. Paying out for lost opium was offensive enough. But having British citizens imprisoned for six weeks by a foreign power? Intolerable.

War was inevitable.

The First Opium War

Parliament was split on whether to go to war. Numerous MPs opposed war on the basis that peddling opium was morally indefensible. A young William Gladstone, the future Prime Minister, was particularly vocal in his disgust.

Nonetheless, Lord Melbourne’s government carried the vote on the grounds that…. well… the opium trade was just too profitable to give up.

So the First Opium War erupted on 4 September 1839, and by June 1840, the main British naval expeditionary force had arrived. The war was a mismatch. The might of the British navy tore through fleets of Chinese junks with their antiquated cannons.

​

​

In an effort to prevent further escalation, Charles Elliot and Qishan—successor to Lin Zexu, disgraced after his crackdown precipitated the war—drafted the Convention of Chuenpi, on 20 January 1841.

Qishan and Elliot hammered out terms: China would pay £6 million in compensation for the destroyed opium, trade would resume at Canton, and—almost as an afterthought—one small, barren island would be ceded to Britain.

The island was called Hong Kong.

The convention achieved what diplomacy rarely does: complete agreement between the two rival powers. Both rejected it as worthless.

Emperor Daoguang couldn’t understand why Britain would wage war for the right to sell poison, while the Foreign Secretary and future Prime Minister, Lord Palmerston, dismissed Hong Kong as “a barren island with hardly a house upon it“.

Elliot proceeded regardless. On 25 January 1841, Captain Edward Belcher of HMS Sulphur landed a party on Hong Kong Island’s northern shore. The following morning, Commodore Sir James John Gordon Bremer raised the Union Jack and claimed Hong Kong Island for Queen Victoria.

​

​

The entire ceremony probably lasted less than an hour. Six thousand Chinese inhabitants weren’t consulted.

The war continued.

Read more

(read time: 7 mins.)

Rudyard Kipling’s writing reveals a contradiction that ran through him like lettering through a stick of Blackpool rock. Kipling was an imperialist to his core. He believed Western empires had a duty to bring order to the world. So how come “You’re a better man than I am, Gunga Din”?

If you were to imagine the life of one of literature’s most celebrated poets, you might picture an introverted soul penning verses in a cramped Parisian apartment, nursing a glass of absinthe in some dimly lit café or hunched over a notebook in an opium-hazed London tavern.

You might not picture a man who was born in Bombay, spent his formative years being systematically abused by foster parents, befriended kings and presidents, and lived with a deep-rooted contradiction that would define everything he wrote.

But that was Rudyard Kipling.​

Joseph Rudyard Kipling

…was born on 30 December 1865, in Bombay—now Mumbai—during the early decades of the British Raj. This was the period between 1858 and 1947 when the British imposed colonial rule over India, though British interference under the guise of the East India Company stretched back to 1600.

​

​

Kipling was born into a life of privilege. His father was a professor of architectural sculpture at the Bombay School of Art. He was cared for by Indian servants who indulged his every whim.

In the 1860s, the British Empire was still building a head of steam. Apart from direct rule in India, it held other colonies across the globe, laying the groundwork for later expansion into Africa, Southeast Asia and the Pacific.

In 1871, at five years of age, Kipling’s idyllic existence received a jolt.

Rudyard’s parents shipped him and his younger sister back to England. Standard practice—India’s climate and diseases weren’t kind to British children. What happened next, however, was anything but standard.

Rudyard and his sister were placed in a foster home in Southsea. For the next six years, Rudyard was physically and psychologically abused. He would be beaten and spend regular periods in dark, solitary confinement.

By the time his horrified mother returned to England in 1877, the damage was already done. The scars of sustained cruelty would haunt him for the rest of his life.

Rudyard Kipling the storyteller

At United Services College in Devon, a military preparatory school, Rudyard proved hopeless at soldiering but brilliant at storytelling. He discovered a talent for writing stories that readers couldn’t put down. The boy who couldn’t shoot had found his weapon of choice.

​

​

Rudyard returned to India to work as a journalist before turning seventeen. Over the next seven years, he wrote at a furious pace—short stories, newspaper columns, anything with a deadline. He captured the landscape, the people, the beauty and the brutality of imperial India.

When Kipling returned to London in 1889, he became a literary sensation almost overnight. Works like ‘The Ballad of East and West‘ and ‘Gunga Din‘ captured the British imagination. Critics were comparing him to Lord Byron and Alfred, Lord Tennyson—heady company for a man barely into his twenties.

Kipling moved effortlessly between soldier ballads and Indian tales, between verse and prose. The British public devoured it all. They were hungry for stories from the far-flung empire and Kipling—with his intimate knowledge of India—was perfectly placed to feed them.

1890 was Rudyard Kipling’s year.

A couple of years later, after marrying American Caroline Starr Balestier in London, Kipling moved to her family’s corner of Vermont. There he wrote The Jungle Book (1894)—instant literary immortality.

But immortality wasn’t enough for Rudyard. He kept writing, kept pushing. His fame extended across Europe, Russia and North America through the 1890s.

In 1907, Kipling won the Nobel Prize for Literature at just 41 years old.

​

The white man’s burden and Gunga Din

If you first encountered Kipling’s works and read just two of his greatest hits—The Jungle Book and the barrack‑room ballad ‘Gunga Din‘—you would wonder how the same imagination could inhabit worlds so far apart.

You would also discover a contradiction that ran through Kipling like lettering through a stick of Blackpool rock.

​

​

Kipling was an imperialist to his core. He believed Western empires had a duty to bring order to the world. The British Empire wasn’t just defensible—it was morally necessary.

In ‘The White Man’s Burden‘, he urged the United States to take up colonial rule in the Philippines as a moral duty toward their ‘new-caught, sullen peoples, half-devil and half-child’.

Yet he could write with profound respect for individuals from those same ‘sullen peoples’—praising their courage, dignity and resilience in ways that seemed to contradict his own imperial beliefs.

In ‘Gunga Din’, a British soldier recalls how his Hindu bhishti—a low-status water carrier—is routinely beaten, mocked and insulted as he drags the soldier’s goatskin bag through brutal heat and battle.

Despite this, when he is shot and left ‘mad with thirst‘, Gunga Din selflessly rushes through enemy fire to bring him water, bandage his wounds and carry him to safety.

In the act of rescue, the humble bhishti takes a bullet. As he lies dying, the soldier finally grasps what should have been obvious all along:

​

​

Doublethink

In George Orwell’s ‘1984‘—a thinly veiled critique of totalitarianism set in the fictitious Oceania—he introduces the concept of ‘Doublethink‘:

​

Was Kipling guilty of Doublethink?

Perhaps. But in his imperial worldview, there was no contradiction: a low‑caste Indian water carrier could be the better man, yet still belong to a people who must be ruled.

By 1910, Kipling remained widely admired across the English-speaking world. But British imperialism had overextended itself and was creaking under pressure from colonial resistance. His imperial beliefs were now marking him as a divisive figure—the ‘poetic voice of a racist empire‘.

Which makes it all the more extraordinary that Rudyard’s most famous work, published that same year, would transcend this growing antipathy to become one of the most enduring poems in English literature.​

If—

On 29 December 1895, Dr Leander Starr Jameson, a close ally of Cecil Rhodes, led the ill‑fated Jameson Raid from Bechuanaland (Botswana) into the Transvaal—a botched incursion that inflamed tensions and helped set the stage for the Second Boer War.

The unauthorised raid staggered on for just five days when Jameson surrendered and was shipped back to Britain to face trial and a brief spell in prison.

Keep calm and carry on.

Kipling was fascinated by Jameson’s resilience in the face of total humiliation—his self-control, his refusal to complain, his tenacity in dusting himself off and starting again. (Jameson went on to become Prime Minister of the Cape Colony in 1904.)

It was this resilience that inspired Rudyard to write his most iconic work, ‘If—‘.

The poem is a guide to being a decent human being in an indecent word, to staying upright when the world is tilting sideways. Some of those lines have become among the most quoted in the English language:

​

‘If—‘ was later published in 1910 in Kipling’s collection, ‘Rewards and Fairies‘.

The poem was an immediate hit; reprinted in newspapers, quoted in speeches and taught in schools. British officers memorised it as a personal code of conduct. When World War I broke out four years later, ‘If—‘ became the definitive morale-boosting text.

Read more

(read time: 5 mins.)

Johannes Vermeer’s young lady looks over her shoulder and catches your gaze. She’s wearing an exotic turban—pearl grey and golden yellow—with a jacket to match. Her lips are just parted, as if she’s about to speak. But your eye keeps returning to that pearl hanging from her left ear, catching the light. The identity of the woman in the painting has never surfaced. Enigmatic. Intimate. That’s the girl with a pearl earring.

For years I moved through the family home completely oblivious to the pictures Dad had hung on the walls. Over time he’d picked up prints of some famous masters, though it would take me forty years to work it out.

During a visit to the National Gallery in London last year, I was excited to see Edgar Degas’ ‘Scène de plage’. The thrill was less about appreciating the brushwork and more about finally recognising the painting that for years had hung in the lounge above where I parked myself on the sofa every day, oblivious.

The penny had dropped.

​

​

Degas wasn’t alone. One of Vincent van Gogh’s forty-odd self-portraits gazed out from the dining room wall, observing my daily routines with what I can only assume was profound disappointment. A Monet—who knows which one, he produced at least 2,000—presided over Dad’s study.

Dad never mentioned his guilty pleasure, perhaps because he’d realised his son wasn’t exactly bursting with cultural curiosity. I was all sport in those days.

But one print in particular comes to mind. I must have walked past it thousands of times. Every day, coming out of my bedroom and down the hallway, she was there, looking down at me. A woman.

I never once asked who she was.

​

Johannes Vermeer

…was born in Delft, a prosperous Dutch town, in 1632. His birth date is unrecorded but he was baptized on 31 October 1632. The Netherlands was in the middle of its Golden Age—a period of considerable wealth and artistic output that had turned a collection of rebellious provinces into one of Europe’s more successful economies.

Surprisingly little is known about Vermeer’s childhood—the records fall silent after his baptism in 1632 and don’t pick up again until he married in 1653. It’s a shame, because his family background suggests there was rarely a dull moment.

For starters, his grandfather was a convicted counterfeiter while grandma ran illegal lotteries. Johannes’ father also harboured the creative enterprise gene. He was a silk weaver who had diversified into the intriguing combination of art dealing and innkeeping.

Fortunately for posterity, Johannes chose painting over the family’s more colorful pursuits.

​

​

At the age of twenty-one, Vermeer married Catharina Bolnes. She was Catholic, he was Protestant. Johannes converted to Catholicism. As if to prove his commitment to his new faith, the couple then proceeded to have fifteen children, though four died in infancy.

Vermeer the meticulous painter

We don’t know who taught Vermeer to paint, or where. It’s quite possible that he taught himself, picking up techniques from the paintings he observed passing through his father’s dealership.

By 1653, Johannes had been accepted into the Delft Guild of Saint Luke as a master painter. He was also elected head of the guild several times. Despite this recognition from his peers, commercial success proved more elusive. There was a problem.

Vermeer painted slowly. Painfully slowly.

Throughout his career, he produced perhaps 35 paintings. Compare this to his contemporary, Rembrandt, who produced around 600 works, or to Jan Steen’s 800 paintings. And don’t forget Monet’s 2,000 mentioned earlier.

But Vermeer wasn’t lazy—he was meticulous. His technique involved grinding expensive pigments, layering translucent glazes and capturing light with an almost scientific precision. Some art historians believe this precision must have benefited from the use of a camera obscura.

​

Out of Curiosity

A camera obscura is an optical device that projects an image onto a surface. Typically, it is a darkened space, either a room or a box, with a small hole or lens in one side which projects light onto the opposite surface.

An inverted image of the outside scene is then produced to allow artists or draughtsmen to trace outlines with great accuracy. In addition, for an artist, it provided a tool to help judge relative light and dark and the overall ‘colour temperature’ in selected areas.

​

​

My personal experience of a camera obscura was at the Clifton Observatory in Bristol, overlooking the Clifton Suspension Bridge. At the top of the tower, a rotating lens, hood and mirror combine to project views across Avon Gorge onto a circular, concave surface in front of you.

In other words, by looking down at the projection, you can see a full panorama of the total area outside. You can see people walking and kids on bicycles while cars and buses crawl their way across the image. The effect is oddly captivating.

​

Vermeer didn’t paint grand historical or religious scenes. He excelled at painting snapshot moments of Dutch domestic life: a woman reading a letter, a maid pouring milk, a music lesson in progress. You are the unseen observer peeking through the window.

His ability to capture light set Vermeer apart in his era; light streaming through windows, reflections from objects of all kinds, seamless gradation from light to shadow.

It was all about the light.

Girl with a Pearl Earring

In 1665, Vermeer painted what would become that mysterious print on my childhood hallway wall. ‘Girl with a Pearl Earring’ has since become his most famous work, dubbed the ‘Mona Lisa of the North’.

The young lady looks over her shoulder and catches your gaze. She’s wearing an exotic turban—pearl grey and golden yellow—with a jacket to match. Behind her, nothing but darkness.

Her lips are just parted, as if she’s about to speak. But your eye keeps returning to that pearl hanging from her left ear, catching the light.

It turns out I wasn’t the only one who didn’t know who she was. The identity of the woman in the painting has never surfaced.

Enigmatic. Intimate. That’s the girl with a pearl earring.

​

​

Read more

(read time: 5 mins.)

On 31 October 1517, Martin Luther published the Ninety-five Theses, challenging the Catholic Church’s practice of selling ‘indulgences’; that is, receiving cash in return for the forgiveness of sins. But what was the chain of events that led from this, leaving one nation with two languages?

You’ll have to excuse me, I have taken an impromptu trip to Belgium and Germany, hence the normal Sunday missive has taken a back seat this week.

In fact, when you read this shortened piece, I will probably be in Dortmund, ready to watch the mighty German Bundesliga team Borussia Dortmund playing football.

Why have I bothered to travel so far for a footie match? I’ll save that for another day... and no, I am not worried about my house being burgled by publicising that I am not there; my middle son is in charge while I am away, so I know the house will already be crawling with unauthorised aliens of every description.

The point is this: I was going to bypass an episode altogether, because I don’t like sharing something that’s rushed or falls short of the normal rigour of a weekly newsletter.

However…

There is an anniversary this week that—bearing in mind where I am at the point of writing—I had to share with you. And here’s the reason why;

Last night, my youngest son and I arrived in Brussels, capital of Belgium. Although we arrived late, we did manage to pop out for a couple of glasses of the finest Belgian ale… La Chouffe, to be precise.

While we were sitting in the bar chatting, I couldn’t help but eavesdrop on the table next to us. Two locals were having an animated conversation entirely in French. Fifteen minutes in, they seamlessly switched to Dutch and continued—without missing a beat. Same people, same chat, just a different operating system.

In Belgium, both languages are spoken, French and Dutch. They weave together so beautifully, you can’t help but notice.

But how on earth did this situation arise?

A small warning; you need to concentrate just a little more than for your usual Sunday morning read; partly because the story has its complications and partly because I am on my third glass of Kwak, the most delightful—but 8.4% a.b.v—Belgian ale. Well, here goes…

​

​

Martin Luther

…was born in 1483 in the small Saxon town of Eisleben, Germany, destined for a conventional life. He’d trained as a lawyer, following his father’s ambitions.

Then a violent thunderstorm changed everything.

Lightning struck near enough to convince the lawyer that God had plans for him—plans that didn’t involve courtrooms. Convinced he’d been spared by divine intervention, Luther abandoned law and entered an Augustinian monastery in 1505.

By 1512, he was a theology professor at the University of Wittenberg, wrestling with questions of sin, salvation and whether good works or faith alone could save a soul.

It was this internal spiritual struggle that would set Luther on a collision course with the most powerful institution in Europe.

Ninety-five Theses

On 31 October 1517, Martin Luther published the Ninety-five Theses, challenging the Catholic Church’s practice of selling ‘indulgences’; that is, receiving cash in return for the forgiveness of sins.

The system was breathtakingly audacious. The Catholic Church had convinced believers they could buy their way out of purgatory, not just for themselves but for deceased relatives already suffering there.

Professional pardoners toured Europe like travelling salesmen, hawking forgiveness with the enthusiasm of market traders. One particularly successful pitch promised that…

​
It was a lucrative business. The money flowed to Rome, funding everything from lavish papal lifestyles to the construction of St Peter’s Basilica. For Luther, a German monk troubled by his own conscience, the whole enterprise was an obscene corruption of Christian faith.

Burning of the Papal Edict

Pope Leo X explicitly demanded that Luther recant his writings in the papal bull Exsurge Domine, in June 1520.

On 10 December 1520, Luther publicly—and dramatically—burned the papal edict demanding his recantation.

Luther was summoned to the Diet of Worms and given a final opportunity by Pope Leo to recant his work. Luther refused, declaring the immortal line…

​

​

​

Martin Luther was excommunicated from the Roman Catholic Church the following year, 1521, and the seeds of Protestantism were sewn.

The flames spread fast.

Luther’s preachings reached the Low Countries; a collection of 17 provinces (the ‘Habsburg Netherlands’) under Habsburg rule that today includes Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg.

​

Frankish, Picard, Walloon and Champenois

The Low Countries had been linguistically split for over a thousand years. When the Germanic Franks invaded in the 5th century—ironically from Germany, not France, despite the name—they pushed south from the northeast.

The Franks settled across the northern territories, bringing their Germanic language, which evolved into Dutch.

However, over the same period, the southern areas evolved from a variety of Romance languages—Picard, Walloon and Champenois—eventually weaving into today’s French.

The result, emerging over several centuries, was a clear linguistic border running roughly east-west: The Flemish Dutch speakers to the north, the French-speaking Walloons to the south.

​

​

Reformation ideas spread in the Low Countries soon after Luther, but they faced harsh repression and remained clandestine at first.

By the mid‑sixteenth century, Protestantism—especially Calvinism—flourished in major southern cities such as Antwerp and in several French‑speaking Walloon towns.

As a result, the ruling Catholic Habsburgs responded with fierce persecution. Fifty years later, this persecution—together with grievances relating to politics and taxation—erupted into 80 years of brutal religious war—the Dutch Revolt of 1568.

​

​One nation, two languages

Here’s where geography played its hand differently. When the dust settled in 1648 with the Peace of Westphalia, the northern provinces had won independence as the Protestant Dutch Republic—and these provinces were almost entirely Dutch-speaking.

But the southern provinces that remained under Catholic Spanish control straddled the old linguistic border; they included both Dutch speakers in Flanders and French speakers in Wallonia.

The religious divide would prove more powerful than the linguistic one. When Belgium finally gained independence in 1830, it emerged as a Catholic nation divided by two languages, shaped by a fire Martin Luther had lit over 300 years earlier.

Read more

(read time: 5 mins.)

Hector Berlioz would create a five-movement symphony inspired by Miss Harriet Smithson, chronicling his obsessive and increasingly unhinged passion for her. A psychedelic autobiography set to music. On 5 December 1830, the Symphonie fantastique received its world première at the Paris Conservatoire. For forty-five pulsating minutes, the audience sat stunned as the young conductor careened through his romantic nightmare…

One of my most cherished memories as a teenager was a visit to London’s Royal Albert Hall for a night at the Proms, one of a marathon of classical concerts that runs every summer for eight weeks.

The Henry Wood Promenade Concerts have been running since 1895, notable for their broad repertoire and relaxed atmosphere. The concerts also attract a fresh intake of enthusiasts.

Students and first-timers mix with the hardcore in the Arena—the standing area in front of the orchestra. Bodies pack in tight, swaying harmoniously—bound by a shared passion for classical music and cheap tickets. These are the ‘Promenaders’.

Less classical concert—more Glastonbury with violins.

The Last Night of the Proms, in particular, is recognisable for a very British outpouring of patriotism. Concert-goers who’ve spent a lifetime in evening dress appear as tubas, Union Jacks, inflatable trumpets and the occasional vegetable.

My visit wasn’t the Last Night of the Proms, but the evening promised its own brand of lunacy: Hector Berlioz’s Symphonie fantastique.

Louis-Hector Berlioz…

…was born in December 1803 in the small town of La Côte-Saint-André, about 35 miles northwest of Grenoble. France was still recovering from a Revolution, and Napoleon was a year away from crowning himself Emperor.

Having spent most of his youth in La Côte-Saint-André, Berlioz dutifully arrived in Paris in 1821 to study medicine, as his father wished. Less dutifully, he abandoned his studies almost immediately after discovering the Paris Opera—at which point dissecting cadavers lost its appeal.

Miss Harriet Smithson – an obsession

Louis-Hector attended the Paris Conservatoire to study composition and quickly determined, with characteristic modesty, that he was—in all probability—a musical genius. As it turned out, he had a point.

Unfortunately, his romantic judgement was less reliable. In September 1827, he attended a performance of Hamlet at the Odeon Theatre in Paris. He instantly fell in love with Ophelia—or rather, an Irish actress called Harriet Smithson.

Berlioz became obsessed with Harriet, unperturbed that she didn’t know he existed. He wrote endless letters, attended her every performance and behaved in the audience with the subtlety of a man who’d just caught fire. In England, we would call this stalking. The French called it love.

Over time, Miss Smithson became aware that she had acquired a wild-eyed admirer and took steps to avoid him.

In desperation, Berlioz did what he did best. He wrote music.

A symphony to Harriet

Hector would create a five-movement symphony inspired by Harriet, chronicling his obsessive and increasingly unhinged passion for her. A psychedelic autobiography set to music.

The hero (Berlioz himself, of course) becomes obsessed with an unattainable woman. In despair, he swallows opium and tumbles into a narcotic nightmare: a trip through a swirling ballroom and tranquil countryside before murdering his beloved and being marched to the scaffold.

For the finale, his muse reappears at a witches’ sabbath, transformed into a cackling hag and dancing gleefully on his corpse. Not exactly The Sound of Music, I admit.

Berlioz would call it ’Symphonie fantastique’.

The madness that is Symphonie fantastique

On 5 December 1830, the Symphonie fantastique received its world première at the Paris Conservatoire.

Hector Berlioz took centre-stage, standing tall with baton in hand, ready to conduct his orchestral obsession in front of the world.

Then, for forty-five pulsating minutes, the audience sat stunned as the young conductor careened through his romantic nightmare.

It was an instant hit. Some of the old guard muttered something about violated classical forms. The younger generation didn’t care. This was new, shocking, beautiful.

When Harriet returned to Paris in 1832, she attended a performance of the Symphonie fantastique. Her symphony. As a result, she finally agreed to meet Berlioz. Evidently, the bit about being murdered by her admirer to then reappear as a shrieking hag cackling over his corpse didn’t raise any red flags.

In one of history’s more unlikely romances, Hector and Harriet fell in love and married the following year.

Don’t you love a happy ending? Well, not this time. The marriage was a disaster. Within a few short years, the couple were living apart, though they never divorced.

Hector Berlioz would become one of the great composers of the Romantic era. He died in 1869, aged 65. Harriet had died four years earlier, having suffered from poor health for most of the rest of her life.

Before Berlioz died, he left instructions that Harriet’s body was to be exhumed and buried next to his. They lie together in Montmartre Cemetery—united in death in a way they never quite managed in life.

Perhaps that counts as a happy ending.

Epilogue

Having read about Hector Berlioz and his obsession with Harriet Smithson, my visit to the Royal Albert Hall all those years ago now makes perfect sense. I realise that the Symphonie fantastique is five movements of glorious, unhinged madness. It isn’t just music—it is a psychotic episode set to orchestra.

High up in the gallery, I looked down on a stage crammed with musicians, perhaps a hundred in all. This was a big orchestra for a big orchestral work.

There were four harps, four timpani, three trombones, an army of strings and enough woodwinds to stock a small forest. There were musicians everywhere.

And then the Symphonie fantastique began.

The music lurched between extremes—soaring one moment, plunging into despair the next. By the time the opium took hold, the hero had been dragged to the guillotine, the mob screaming for blood. His head fell with a single orchestral stroke.

By the final movement, I was exhausted. Berlioz descended into hell and tried to take me with him. Church bells tolled. Tubas, bassoons and trombones belted out the Dies Irae. Witches shrieked and danced. Death chants and the mangled love theme collided in glorious, unholy chaos.

The orchestra raced to its conclusion. Cymbals crashed, timpani rumbled and roared. The string section pumped their bows frantically, heads thrashing like the front row at a Metallica concert.

Faster now. Louder. All one hundred musicians blasted, slashed and crashed for their lives. And through the bedlam, Berlioz’s cackling hag danced with demons. The witches had won, he was dead and hell was celebrating.

The whole experience was brutal, uncompromising…. and magnificent.

Thank you for joining me.

Steve
HOST & CHIEF STORY HUNTER

ATTRIBUTIONS
Harriet Smithson: George Clint, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons.
Young Hector Berlioz: Émile Signol, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons.
Royal Albert Hall: © User:Colin, CC BY-SA-4.0, Wikimedia Commons.

CC BY-SA 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

(read time: 6 mins.)

On 21 November 1915, Frank Hurley photographed the scene when the Endurance unleashed a resounding cry as her back broke. She had finally given way to the merciless ice floes. With the grace of a prima ballerina, the three-masted barquentine pointed her nose down and slipped gradually beneath the waves.

If you take a trip to the National Portrait Gallery in London, you’ll find ‘Room 30: Contemporary Conversations’, where paintings and early photographs hang side by side, engaged in what amounts to a polite but determined turf war.

You can see artists of the era, freed from the tyranny of having to paint subjects exactly as they look, begin experimenting with impressionism, abstraction and wild colour. By contrast, the early photos look very staged and formulaic.

However, by the 1850s, photographers were experimenting too—adding drama and atmosphere to their images that the camera alone couldn’t capture.

​

Out of Curiosity

Joseph Niécphore Niépce created the earliest surviving photograph of a real-world scene in 1826-27. However, the first commercially viable photographic process was the daguerrotype, a process invented by Louis Daguerre.

His first ever photograph is thought to have been taken in 1837, although he created his earliest surviving daguerrotype, ‘Boulevard du Temple’, in 1838—publicly announced the following year.

​

​

Which brings us, somewhat improbably, to a man standing on Antarctic ice in 1915, hauling glass plate negatives across frozen seas, determined to turn a disaster into something beautiful.

Frank Hurley was born in Sydney, Australia, on 15 October 1885. Australia was still a collection of separate colonies—federation was fifteen years away.

By eighteen, Frank had taught himself the basics of photography, which was still transitioning into something more artful than simply recording what the eye could see. By 1905, he was a partner in a postcard business in central Sydney.

This was the golden age of postcards, before the telephone took over as the primary form of communication. Frank photographed Sydney and the surrounding areas, converting his images into postcards.

However, he started to embrace the ‘Pictorialist’ philosophy of photography that had been evolving since around 1890. This focus helped him to develop a signature style that provided the basis of his photography for the next 50 years.

​

Out of Curiosity

For centuries, artists had perfected the art of painting what they could see. Take a look at Thomas Gainsborough’s ‘The Blue Boy’ or John Constable’s The Hay Wain. Life represented in oil or watercolour.

Then, after centuries of perfecting this skill, photography emerged.

What was the point of painting what you could see when photographs could do it faster and cheaper? The Impressionists and Post-Impressionists had an answer: Monet, Renoir, Cézanne, Van Gogh and their contemporaries stopped trying.

These artists decided to paint impression over precision, atmosphere over accuracy.

Constable’s clouds gave way to Van Gogh’s swirling skies while Gainsborough’s silken portraits evolved into Picasso’s angular, cubist faces.

​

​

Here’s the problem. Photographers such as Hurley were finding photography too mechanical. Point and click. A monkey could do that—but where was the artistry?

The Pictorialists had their own Impressionist awakening. They considered creating art rather than precise images by introducing soft focus, imaginative compositions and manipulation in the darkroom.

Like the Impressionists, these photographic artists sought mood and atmosphere, rather than documentary precision. They had discovered that blurring reality could somehow make it more truthful.

​

Frank wanted the drama and artistic control of Pictorialism, but without the soft-focus romance. He wanted sharp edges, epic scale, dramatic skies—the kind of subjects Sydney Harbour couldn’t provide

Hurley needed something more extreme. He found it when he joined Douglas Mawson’s 1911 Australasian Antarctic Expedition.

It was a brutal baptism. With temperatures falling below minus 30 degrees Celsius, equipment froze solid. Changing photographic plates became an exercise in pain management.

Nonetheless, Hurley’s photos from that expedition have become iconic images of Antarctic exploration.

But the career-defining moment came in 1914, when Hurley joined Ernest Shackleton’s Imperial Trans-Antarctic Expedition. Shackleton’s challenge was to attempt the first land crossing of Antarctica.

The expedition set sail in August 1914. Their ship—the Endurance—spent six weeks pushing through pack ice, crossing the Antarctic Circle to within a day’s reach of their destination, Vahsel Bay.

But the ice had different ideas. The northerly gales pushed ice floes hard against each other. The Endurance came to a standstill and would remain locked in the Weddell Sea for the next ten months.

​

​

By late October, Shackleton and his men had left the precarious ship and set up what they colourfully referred to as ‘Ocean Camp’—shabby tents perched on a migrating ice floe with only penguins and elephant seals for company.

Hurley made repeated trips back to the stricken ship, rescuing 120 photographic plates from a collection of over 500. Agonisingly, he smashed the remaining negatives—the only way to guarantee not risking his life trying to retrieve them later.

For the following month, the stranded crew of the Endurance watched helplessly as the vast, grinding walls of ice closed in on the trapped vessel. She groaned and twisted.

On 21 November 1915, the Endurance unleashed a resounding cry as her back broke. She had finally given way to the merciless ice floes. With the grace of a prima ballerina, the three-masted barquentine pointed her nose down and slipped gradually beneath the waves.

In fact, the Endurance came to a stop with her stern sitting proud of the water. She held that pose for a week, as if waiting for a final curtain call. Then, quietly, she surrendered to the Weddell Sea.

Those images rescued by Hurley document one of history’s greatest survival stories. Shackleton’s entire crew would survive 22 months stranded on the ice. Hurley’s photographs gave the world a front-row seat to their ordeal.

These photographs were stunning, if not somewhat controversial. Hurley created composites, combining multiple negatives into single dramatic images—turning documentary into romantic elegy.

Purists were horrified, but Hurley was unapologetic. He was an artist. He wasn’t just there to record facts.

​

​

In a previous Breezer, I have mentioned my favourite painting, J.M.W. Turner’s The Fighting Temeraire (OK, more than once!). Art historians still debate whether Turner’s masterpiece is an actual depiction of what he saw when the HMS Temeraire was hauled up the River Thames by a steam-driven tug boat in 1838, on its way to being scrapped.

Read more

(read time: 5 mins.)

When Britain finally adopted the Gregorian calendar in 1752, eleven days simply vanished. The public was baffled. The taxman was not. Some things never change.

​If you had lived in Great Britain or anywhere in the British Empire in September 1752, you would have gone to bed on the 2nd and woken up on the 14th.

Eleven entire days—gone. And not because you’d had a particularly good evening. You didn’t sleep through them. You weren’t drunk (probably). They simply ceased to exist.

Eleven days quietly abolished—erased from the calendar and never coming back. No refunds, no appeals. Miss a birthday? Tough. Owe rent on the 7th? Fascinating problem.

How come? ​

Well, to understand this, let’s step back a few years and look at how everyday folk in Britain arranged their yearly cycle back in the Middle Ages, say around 500 CE*. ​

The year was divided into Quarter Days, named after Christian festivals, to make them easy to remember. As well as their ecclesiastical origins, these were also the days on which rents were payable to the feudal landlords. God and mammon sharing a calendar. ​

Lady Day: (Feast of the Annunciation), 25 March; This was New Year’s Day. Night and day were balanced, marking the beginning of the agricultural year. It was time for farmers to get planting. ​

Midsummer Day: (Feast of St. John the Baptist), 24 June; falling near the summer solstice, the longest day. A time for festivals, celebrating nature, fertility and community. ​

Michaelmas: (Feast of St. Michael and All Angels), 29 September; a celebration of the end of the harvest season and the beginning of autumn. ​

Christmas: (Feast of the Nativity), 25 December; the Christian celebration of the birth of Jesus. It’s all about the family, gifts and feasting for the winter. ​

This natural view of the annual cycle sat well with the calendar mechanism of the day, the Julian Calendar.

Introduced by the future Roman dictator Julius Caesar in 46 BCE, the Julian calendar followed the solar cycle, aligning with the Earth’s orbit around the sun. ​

To handle that awkward quarter-day, Caesar’s astronomers did what any sensible bureaucrat would do—they rounded down for three years and then added an extra day every fourth year. The leap year was born. It was elegant, it was logical and for over fifteen centuries, it was the calendar the entire Western world lived and died by.

The Julian calendar was an improvement on the previous Roman calendar, which was a lunar affair—built around the Moon’s cycles rather than the Sun’s. The Roman calendar encouraged higgledy-piggledy theories regarding the length of a year and needed regular tweaking.

How long was a year, exactly? Excellent question. Ask ten Romans and you would get eleven answers. The calendar required constant patching to stop it drifting embarrassingly out of sync with the seasons. ​ ​

By contrast, the Julian calendar kept the twelve dividers, the months, to track the lunar cycle, more or less. You may remember from school learning that the months were named after Roman Gods and significant figures, so; January/Janus, March/Mars, May/Maia, not forgetting July, which Caesar named in honour of……. himself.

The leap year accounted for the extra 1/4 day per year. February received the extra day not as the shortest month but because, at the time, it was the last month of the year. ​

Fast-forward to 2 September 1752.

The Gregorian calendar was adopted (named after Pope Gregory XIII). This allowed Britain to fall in step with most of Western Europe, which had converted back in 1582. ​

The Gregorian calendar calculated the solar year to be 365.2425 days. This greater precision meant even less tampering was necessary. ​

However, the change highlighted a problem. Adjusting to the Julian calendar 170 years after most of Western Europe had converted meant that Great Britain was now 11 days behind. The solution… simply remove 11 days from the calendar.

The 3rd of September 1752 became the 14th of September 1752. Job done.

Not everyone took the change without fuss. Some people were genuinely convinced that eleven days had been lopped off their lives—that they were ageing faster than nature intended, victims of a calendrical mugging.

However, apart from a few adjustments around the Quarter Days, Britain adapted with admirable calm. The Gregorian calendar has since become the world’s calendar of choice.

Out of Curiosity

Just in case you’ve never quite got your head around the leap year rule, as defined by the Gregorian calendar...

Leap Year​
A year is a leap year if it is divisible by 4. So, 2024 is a leap year. ​

Exception
A year marking the turn of a century, e.g. 2000, 2100, 2200, can only be a leap year if it is divisible by 400. ​

This means that 1600 and 2000 were leap years, with the next century leap year set for 2400.

FOOTNOTE

In the United Kingdom today, 5 April marks the end of the tax year.

On this day, individuals and corporations calculate the amount of tax due to His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. ​The date may seem a little random… until you remember that the old New Year’s Day was 25 March.

When Britain switched to the Gregorian calendar in 1752, the Inland Revenue—as HMRC was then known—was perfectly happy to lose eleven days from the calendar, but considerably less happy to lose eleven days of tax receipts.

The solution was straightforward: move the end of the tax year eleven days forward to 4th April. In 1800, another one-day leap year adjustment was applied and, hey presto, 5th April is now the last day of the UK tax year.

*I have used BCE (Before Common Era) and CE (Common Era) instead of the more traditional BC and AD.

The cover image shows William Hogarth’s painting “An Election Entertainment” (1755) featuring the anti-Gregorian calendar banner “Give us our Eleven Days”.

Thank you for joining me.

Steve
HOST & CHIEF STORY HUNTER

ATTRIBUTIONS

Julian to Gregorian Calendar: Atul Bishnoi, CC BY-SA 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons.
Roman calendar: Sousse Mosaic Ad Meskens, CC BY-SA 3.0, via Wikimedia Commons.
A spinster spots her chance with a Leap Year; Bob Satterfield, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons.
Pope Gregory XIII; Lavinia Fontana, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons.

CC BY 4.0: ​https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 ​
CC BY-SA 3.0: ​https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0 ​
CC BY-ND 4.0: ​https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/

(read time: 5 mins.)

Heading north, Captain James Cook and the HMS Endeavour hit a reef. Holed and limping into a small river estuary, there was only one option left: the venerable art of ‘careening’.

Imagine you’re 12,000 miles from home. You have no communications, no backup. You’re on the high seas with no engine, just sailcloth and temperamental winds to drive you. Even your maps are vague, incomplete and sometimes completely wrong. There’s a massive landmass somewhere nearby, about the size of Europe, but you can’t find it! ​

You’re at sea for weeks without sight of land. Your food supply is limited (and pretty disgusting at that). Your living quarters are cramped and the threat of mortal disease lurks around every corner. Sound like fun? ​

That was life for the 18th-century European voyagers who literally threw caution to the wind in the pursuit of mapping the world, documenting natural history, searching for prosperous trade routes and, above all, hoping to lay claim to new lands for colonial expansion.

The story of Captain James Cook—formally a Lieutenant in the Royal Navy at the time but captain of the HMS Endeavour—departing from Plymouth in August 1768 in search of Terra Australis Incognita, ‘Unknown Southern Land’, is well trodden.

Less known is what happened after Cook had planted his flag at Botany Bay in 1770 as he continued his exploration of the east coast of the unknown southern land.

Heading north, Cook looked to make quicker progress by sailing through the Great Barrier Reef at night. It was a rare miscalculation—for a man whose navigational instincts bordered on the supernatural—and it must have stung.

On 11 June 1770, the ship hit the reef and stuck fast at a spot today known, with commendable simplicity, as Endeavour Reef. Badly holed below the waterline, the Endeavour started to flood.

All the crew, including Cook, took turns pumping in short shifts. They threw tons of ballast, water casks and six guns overboard in an attempt to keep her from going under.

Cook needed to head for dry land, but had to keep the ship afloat to get there. Midshipman Jonatan Monkhouse suggested ‘fothering’. Cook agreed.

The method was straightforward, if not exactly fragrant. Monkhouse took an old sail, stitched into it a generous mixture of chopped oakum and wool, then blended this with dung collected from the animals kept on board.

The resulting object—part sail, part compost heap—was then dragged beneath the hull, where the suction of water rushing through the hole would pull the mixture into the breach and slow the leak.

It worked, proof that desperation has always been the mother of invention.

Once fothered, Cook set off towards mainland Australia. The sound a wooden ship makes when it grinds across coral is not, by all accounts, a reassuring one. In danger of sinking at any moment, Cook identified a suitable estuary—unmapped, of course, because everything up here was unmapped—where he could run the boat aground to carry out repairs.

Let’s take stock: You’re on the other side of the world; no cranes, no dry dock, no helpful passing ships. The vessel that is your only conceivable way home has a gigantic hole in its hull below the waterline. What to do?

Well, if you’re James Cook, you don’t panic. You don’t despair. You take things one step at a time.

Cook and his men spent six weeks grounded on the—now named—Endeavour River. The repairs had to be done, but Cook also understood that a nervous, exhausted crew fixes nothing.

He set up a proper shore camp. Men rotated duties. The ship’s naturalists, Joseph Banks and Daniel Solander, wandered off into the bush with their notebooks, apparently delighted by the whole situation.

A young sailor who had never seen a kangaroo in his life reported back to Cook in a state of some confusion, describing a creature that hopped on two legs and seemed to have a pocket. Cook listened carefully and wrote it all down.

To patch the hull itself, he employed the most extraordinary technique: careening. It sounds like something that should end badly, and in lesser hands, it would have.

As the tide receded, the ship lay over to one side, like a tired dog rolling onto its side, allowing repairs to the newly exposed section of the hull. Once completed, the ship refloated on the next available tide.

Then, as the following low tide approached, the crew attached ropes from mastheads to fixed points onshore and coaxed the ship down onto its opposite side, exposing what remained of the damage.

It was, in essence, a 370-ton controlled collapse—repeated twice, in a remote river mouth, with hand tools and rope, by men who had been at sea for the better part of two years.

Once completed, one more high tide and the Endeavour were back afloat. For Cook, it was all in a day’s work (well, six weeks).

Read more