Marie Antoinette's

While authors of scandalous French libels escaped France for the safety freedom of Grub Street, England would soon be taking a closer look at their own press. Hanoverian rule during the early part of the 18th century was a time of freedom for the English to discuss politics and have opinions openly and without fear of (severe) punishment. A slap on the wrist and a fine for saying the king is a turd does not seem too bad considering the woes of earlier offenders.

Dangerous Talk: Scandalous, Seditious, and Treasonable Speech in Pre-Modern England, by David Cressy, takes you on a walk through medieval England and Tudor England before dropping you off in the 18th century where progress and a return to censorship converge.

Each time I opened the book was instantly transported into a sweaty pub or dusty street, surrounded by neighbors discussing the latest in politics, and not in the best light. Some conversations are ignorant, some are palpable, and most are drunk. Dangerous Talk is an eye opening view of what people thought outside of the tower gates and how the monarchy chose to handle them. Each monarchy took a slightly different approach to punishing offenders, creating new laws and resurrecting ancient ones. The unsuspecting or vehement citizens expressed their opinions, feelings and ideas which we, two hundred years later, revisit thanks to Cressy's rich research.

Like those in Middlesex, who knew of Margaret Hicks, you will not soon forget her scandalous story. In a conversation with her neighbor, she flat out cursed King George, with no remorse. Sensing the heated and treasonable words, her thoughtful neighbor reminded her to watch her tongue, but to no avail. The insufferable Ms. Hicks then continued to curse the king, offered threats with her flatware and dismissed any concern over being punished for it. Imagine the gossip after she was sent…well let’s just say 1719 was not her best year.

And who could forget all the talk about Elizabeth Tudor's lovers and bastards? Not Thomas Holland of Essex. After hearing a little rumour about her majesty's pregnancy, his urge to share the news with the town overcame him. But would the penalty be both ears, one hundred pounds, or something worse?

Even with characters like Anne Boleyn sitting on the throne, your words could cost you. That is what Margaret Chaunseler learned after calling Anne a "goggled-eyed whore."

Cressy brings to light friendly and fiery conversations from behind pub walls. You may safely assume that to be drunk and speak politics is never a good combination, especially with the neighbors! I carried this one around for a while, revisiting the historical world Cressy has put together for us quite often. Scholarly in nature and light in tone, Dangerous Talk is an intriguing glimpse into the private thoughts and public punishment of neighbors in pre-modern England.

Cressy, David. 2010. Dangerous talk: scandalous, seditious, and treasonable speech in pre-modern England. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780199564804

You can get a copy of Dangerous Talk from:
Oxford University Press
Amazon.com
Amazon.co.uk

Welcome Back! We are discussing the trial of the comte de Morangies Vs. the Verons.  This case really picked up popularity as it happened because of the subjects - regular citizens vs. the nobility.  The case was an early example of a cause célèbre and reports of it spread quickly about town.  Most everyone was routing for the Verons, and against the noble. If you have not read the first part read it here:   (Part 1)

Part 2

The lieutenant immediately had both Dujonquay and his mother in custody and they were cross examined about the matter.  There was some controversy here, as it seemed they were tirelessly questions and possibly endured some violence when questioning occurred. In the end they both confessed that the receipt's had only been given to them for negotiations, and were not in fact proof of payment.

It did not take long after giving a confession for both mother and son to take it back! They brought the case to the Paris courts to pursue the comte.  The trial was long and drawn out, and the Parisians followed it with peaked interest.  The debate became public, there were pamphlets, and everyone had an opinion. 

It took twenty months to reach a verdict.  The winners of the case were the Verons.  The comte was ordered to pay back the 300,000 livres, as well as interest and extra charges for damages.  This was ridiculous to the comte and he brought the case to the higher Paris courts (let the great debate continue!)

As a result of his ambition to fight these rulings he spent the next four months on trial.  After four months the comte was cleared of charges! An effort well spent!

In addition to being cleared of having to make the enormous payments he was to receive 1000 livres in damages. The Verons (sans grandmother who had passed away in the midst of the debacle at 88 years of age from distress over the whole pickle) received sentences. The boy was banished from the city for three years and the mother had to pay a small fine.

And that concludes the case of 1771!

In 1771 a court case caught the attention of the Parisians and they followed it every day like the Clinton trials. It all started with a noble, Jean-Francois de Molette, comte de Morangies, who was a field marshal in the royal army. The comte owned a bunch of land in the south of France and he wanted to invest in it and make it better - fix things up a bit.

He decided to borrow the money to do this, and he was recommended to go to Francois Liegaurd-Dujonquay. Dujonquay was a young man who worked both with his mother, Genevieve Gaillard-Romain and grandmother who was known as the widow Veron. The boy worked as a money broker and with his family agreed to meet with the comte about a business transaction.

Molette needed a lot of money to put into the land and the parties agreed on 300,000 livres. (This was in September) Shortly after the deal was struck, the comte was unhappy, claiming he was despaie, and had only received 1200 livres of the 300,000! He said that the young Dujonquay (his party referred to as the Verons) had in fact delivered part of the sum, the 1,200, but that had been all. Dujonquay protested and produced 4 receipts, billets a ordre, which showed he had made the full delivery.

Astonished and horrified, the comte took the case to the police lieutenant of Paris...

(Continued in Part 2)