Aug. 5th, 2013

Royal mistresses are often given a bad rap. After all, by definition they are either engaged in adultery or enjoying (or enduring) decidedly outside of marriage sex with little hope for marriage. Beyond this, many such women are accused of acting solely out of greed: why else, after all, would anyone sleep with a prince or a king? To be fair, in some cases, said prince or king may not exactly be a model of good looks (Charles II, anyone?) even when the contemporaries of said prince or king (Charles II, again) assure us that whatever we might think of their looks, they were very very hot and sexy. (Hi, Charles II.) Still, given that many royal mistresses received jewelry or titles or money or estates from their lovers, this greed thing might not be completely unfounded.

But what happens when the royal mistress is the one financially supporting her lover?

Dora of many, many last names depending on the circumstances, but generally known by her stage name of Mrs. Jordan, was one of the most successful actresses of the English stage in the late 18th and early 19th centuries. Primarily known for her work in comedy and her Shakespearean roles, she worked a punishing schedule, often performing two plays per night in front of large audiences (her primary London theatre could seat 2000 people) or doing exhausting road shows. Thanks to her popularity, she could, and did, command very high salaries; she also wrote music and helped write plays. She became known for championing plays written by women, and was talented enough that she could continue to play teenagers even when she was decidedly no longer in that category. What makes this particularly astonishing is that she did this while seemingly constantly pregnant: she bore at least 14 living children and reportedly also suffered multiple miscarriages. She typically worked right up to the point of giving birth, and took very short maternity leaves, often bringing whatever child she was nursing to work and sometimes even on stage. I mean, I hurt just thinking about this.

Her first pregnancy was apparently the result of what we would now call sexual harassment. This was before she had earned her later popularity, and Dora at the time had no money and only limited social connections; also, she was illegitimate herself. That pregnancy also forced her to take the name "Mrs. Jordan" (socially a "Miss" could not be so heavily pregnant, although the lack of a "Mr. Jordan" was an open secret.) Dora adored her little daughter. It's very possible that, however negative that first experience, the fact that she had been able to continue to work through and after the socially unsanctioned pregnancy encouraged her to have later relationships without the benefit of marriage. Or, more likely, she just fell in love.

One of these later lovers was the Duke of Clarence, third son of George III, later to become King William IV. In these pre-king days, the Duke of Clarence had very little to do: he spent some time in the Navy, and then was taken out of it for the fun of just hanging around and not doing much. Shockingly, when you have nothing to do, you end up spending a lot of money, and arguably one reason the Duke stayed with Dora was that she often paid his bills, and continued to pay her own. After all, she had more money than he did.

Despite his debts, they seem to have been very happy: they had a large house on the country (Dora commuted, often having to stay in town) and the Duke was very kind to Dora's children who weren't his (three of them) and Dora in turn was very kind to the Duke's son who wasn't hers (one of them.) When not together (because of her work obligations) they wrote each other constantly and affectionately. Until, that is, the Duke dumped her.

By this point Dora was turning fifty. The Duke was still in debt, and so Dora remained the main breadwinner for their family and their children. The boys started military careers at what we would consider horribly young ages (14, 11, and so on). The girls stayed with their father, but king's son or not, money was tight, and they continually begged Dora for money. A son-in-law cheated Dora out of money just as her health started to decline – she had, after all, been working a demanding job for decades, even beyond all the childbearing. Now deeply in debt, and unable to continue working the same schedule, she fled to Paris – close, she hoped, to one of her military sons – and died in poverty. Not exactly the royal mistress makes out big sort of story.

Claire Tomalin's Mrs Jordan's Profession: The Actress and the Prince is a delightfully gossipy biography of Mrs. Jordan that tells you all the important things, like, who was sleeping with whom, and how an attack of black beetles can attack even the best of households, and the circumstances leading up to court martials, and suicides, drug abuse, actresses, bigamous marriages (well, ok, just one) and other scandals. It could have benefited from slightly better copyediting – I caught a few typos and grammatical errors, and one of the footnotes claims that Georgiana, Duchess of Devonshire, was Lady Harriet Bessborough's younger sister; it was quite the other way around. But still, quite a lot of fun, and if you've been reading my Georgette Heyer posts and want to know more of the background, recommended.
A number of other people have already objected more eloquently than I can to the "Ten Questions to Know if You're a Pro" questionnaire here ("pro" in this case meaning "pro writer.") John Scalzi, for one, has noted that by that definition, he's not a professional writer, and several other full time professional writers have jumped up to say the same. I'm with them: it's a terrible list. But apart from all of the major, major assumptions appearing all over that list, I was particularly struck with this comment:

"5. Do you plan vacations around writing opportunites (either research or networking potential)?"

I'm going to (mostly) skip past the obvious responses of "Can you afford vacations?" and "Is a research/networking thing actually a vacation or, you know, part of your job, whatever your job/field," and instead say this:

Writers, real, unreal, pro, hobbyist, don't go on vacation.

Ever.

In the literal sense. I have, at that all time premier vacation spot, Walt Disney World, written various Tor.com posts (six of the Oz posts were written there), flash fiction pieces, the story that recently appeared in 16 Single Sentence Stories (that was written while I was in line), and bits of other things. Admittedly this is partly because I know Disney very well, so it's not a particularly big deal for me to whip out a notebook (or these days, the Nook) and type things out (especially in line). But this has also happened in other "vacation" spots and times, on road trips, on planes, in places very far from home. When words come, I grab them. It's not just me. I have lost track of the number of writers who assured me that they were really truly really going on a nice relaxing vacation where they would not even think of writing only to return with a completed short story or poem or two.

But even when we are not physically putting words down on a notebook or electronic device, we are still, as writers, observing, watching, imbibing. I never know what might or might not appear in a later story. Going mangrove snorkeling, for instance, just seemed at the time to be fulfilling course requirements until it popped up in a fairy tale, years later. I have taken bits and pieces from other travels, other quiet moments, and put them in various stories and various poems; sometimes I don't even recognize these bits for years. Sometimes I know them immediately. Sometimes it's important to know.

And very often I have no idea that I'm doing "research." A trip to watch the space shuttle go up turned into a paragraph that thankfully I did not have to research, but at the time, I thought I was just watching the space shuttle.

Other times I need to see something new, something different, to find words again.

I'm not by any means saying that writers have to travel to write. Obviously, many writers and poets have written beautifully and deeply while rarely if ever leaving home (Emily Dickinson leaps to mind, but she's hardly the only example). But I do think that writing requires two things: one, time to focus on words, just words, time that may, or may not, require a "vacation" (however defined) to achieve, and two, above all, living. And if a writer needs that vacation to live -- well, I'll still think that writer is a writer.

October 2018

S M T W T F S
 123456
78910111213
14 151617181920
21222324252627
28293031   

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags