49 Chapter II The Treacherous Queen: Mary of Modena and the Warming Pan Scandal The media?s gruesome fascination with the Aubry case provided the English public with a temporary distraction from the biggest scandal of early 1688?the pregnancy of the childless Queen Mary of Modena. After a number of miscarriages and children who did not make it out of infancy, many in England believed that the unpopular Catholic Stuart reign would be short lived and felt that Mary, at 29, was now too old to conceive.1 Without a male heir the throne was set to pass to Mary, James II?s Protestant daughter from an earlier marriage, and her husband, the ambitious William of Orange. As discussed earlier, the panic caused by the Aubry murder fed on and amplified the anxiety caused by the announcement of the Queen?s pregnancy, which, it was feared might produce an heir and a perpetual line of Catholic Stuart monarchs. Rumors about the legitimacy of her pregnancy dogged the Stuarts from its announcement in December 1687. The Crown?s belated, disorganized and initially dismissive reaction only increased talk that the Stuart queen?s pregnancy was part of a Catholic plot to continue the Catholic line. The presses of Stuart opponents, often in Holland, pumped out dozens of broadsides, ballads, and chapbooks ridiculing the queen and hypothesizing that her pregnancy was really an elaborate hoax. These rumors overwhelmed the feeble denials of the Stuarts and their supporters, who waited until months after the birth of the Prince of Wales in June 1688 to address the rumors publicly, hoping that they would dissipate when the Queen delivered.2 Apart from a few requests to pray for the Queen?s safe delivery, the monarchy failed to address the gossip until almost a year after the rumors began, a move Rachel Weil described as ?too little and too 50 late.?3 By this time, the rumors had already gained traction and had become what would be referred to as the Warming Pan myth. Though there were competing versions of this story, in all versions the queen and her associates substituted a male child, born of another woman, and claimed him as the rightful Prince of Wales. The myth earned its name from the common supposition that the child was introduced to the birth chamber via a warming pan. These myths initially discredited Mary of Modena and her family, but after the flight of the Stuarts, they flourished and provided justification for altering the line of succession in favor of William and Mary. This chapter will build on the work of Lisa Forman Cody and Rachel Weil who both addressed the Warming Pan myths as part of their studies on the influence and potential threat of women in the later Stuart period. I explore how these myths succeeded by using the same tropes that were used to smear Mary Aubry?the manipulative midwife, the alien Catholic, and the traitoress.4 Through the caricatures of the Warming Pan scandal, the scheming Catholic queen became the bogeyman of 1688. Rather than serving merely as another means to discredit the Stuarts, the Warming Pan scandal transformed the body of Mary of Modena into a central ideological battleground during the Revolution of 1688-89. The Mary of Modena that appears in the Warming Pan myths represented a threat to both the political order as well as the patriarchal social order, a threat which had to be eliminated in order to ensure the future of England. The origins of the Warming Pan myth emerged as soon as word of Mary of Modena?s pregnancy first began spreading in late 1687. Early rumors questioned Mary?s pregnancy in the first few weeks and months of her pregnancy, sowing the seeds that would later turn her into a loathed figure?a treasonous woman who sought to undermine 51 England?s religious, political, and social foundation. With the official announcement of the Queen?s pregnancy on Christmas Eve, gossip swirled through London throwing Stuart opponents into a frenzy of denial. The Tuscan ambassador in London, Francesco Terriesi, first recorded reports of rumors in January 1687/8, only days after the news of her pregnancy was confirmed: ?This pregnancy of the Queen, at a time when utterly different expectations were prevalent concerning her, has caused great surprise, especially among those who, in their measures, had little calculated upon such an accident; the Orangeists, therefore, refuse to believe it?or impudently declare it to be a fiction.?5 The Earl of Clarendon and the Papal Nuncio, Ferdinand d?Adda, also noted the popularity of these rumors. Clarendon recorded that the queen?s condition ?is everywhere ridiculed, as if scarce anybody believes it to be true,? while d?Adda reported that one common myth was that the queen simply wore a cushion beneath her dress to appear pregnant.6 These rumors gained additional credence when the queen?s stepdaughter, Anne, doubted the validity of the pregnancy. Anne, expressed doubts to her sister, Mary, that the queen?s ?great Belly is a little suspicious? especially since she appeared healthier than normal.7 Publication of these ?satires? became so prevalent and widely distributed in the first few weeks alone that by the end of January even Mary of Modena was familiar with many of them.8 The initial reports reference two staples of the Warming Pan myth?the Queen?s supposed inability to have children and the belief that the pregnancy was faked. These aspects of the myth only grew more prominent over time and would appear in a number of later accounts. One widely distributed tract claimed that the ?Queen?s sickness and infirmities? made conception impossible, while a similar pamphlet added that even if 52 Mary had been fit for conception and delivery James was no longer capable of fathering any children.9 A particularly virulent tract, A Sham Prince Expos?d, drove home the point that the pregnancy had to be a fake when it depicted two supporters of the queen doubting the truth of her pregnancy. In this broadside, the woman that the Queen had hired to nurse the Prince of Wales told the Papal Nuncio ?why they say the Queen lay under such Circumstances at the time of the report of her Conception, that not all the Stallions in Europe could have got her with Child; nay, they say neither the Irish Champion, nor the Italian Count, no nor the Strongest Backs in Covent Garden could have done it.?10 Such strong beliefs in her inability to become pregnant pervaded the Warming Pan myths and undermined her credibility as a woman since she was incapable of fulfilling one of her most basic functions as a woman and a queen?the production of children and an heir to the throne. Since the English press was monitored by government agents who could block publication of this type of material, printers in Holland printed the majority of these anti- Stuart publications prior to the Williamite invasion.11 However, English printers found ways around these constrictions by printing items that used past events or parallel circumstances to mock the Stuarts. As a result, the Queen was criticized using previously published slanders against the despised Mary Tudor. Printers re-issued derisive broadsides that had appeared after Mary Tudor mistook an illness, likely stomach cancer, for a pregnancy in the 1550s. One particularly popular one, Idem Iterum, or the History of Queen Mary?s Big Belly, ridiculed Mary Tudor alternately for miscarrying and faking her pregnancy.12 Since critics previously had voiced similar concerns about Mary of Modena, the intended target of attack clearly was her. 53 Furthermore, these comparisons worked to connect the two women together, which only helped sink Mary of Modena?s reputation faster?associating Mary of Modena with John Foxe?s ?bloody? Mary.13 Once the Stuarts fled, the comparisons became even more direct. Just like Mary Tudor, opponents asserted that Mary of Modena carried on her ?tradition? of staged pregnancies that were marked by secretive behavior. They cited the fact that no one witnessed Mary of Modena?s belly or her breasts to verify that the pregnancy was genuine.14 Mary of Modena became the modern equivalent of Mary Tudor, a woman who was physically incapable of producing an heir and one who wanted an heir so badly that they would resort to anything in order to get one, a comparison that was also amplified by their shared Catholicism. Much of the doubt and the ensuing derision about Mary of Modena?s condition stemmed from the public rituals that she went through while attempting to conceive. In the fall of 1686/7, she went to the visit St. Winifred?s well, which reputedly helped women conceive, and prayed to the Lady of Loreto for help in bearing an heir. Mary attributed the pregnancy that followed shortly thereafter to a miraculous intervention.15 However, these claims simply provided skeptics with reason to doubt the legitimacy of the pregnancy. Protestants mocked these prayers and pilgrimages as superstitious Catholic rituals acerbically informing women that were ?barren and sick? that this was a ?new way of getting of children.? They insinuated that the real cause of Mary?s pregnancy was not a miracle, but an adulterous affair.16 Another anti-Stuart tract scoffed at reports that Mary had been notified of her pregnancy by an angel as she slept, joking that it must have been one of her servants whom she mistook for an angel.17 Another tract declared that this gossip made the queen?s pregnancy a ?matter of laughter and 54 derision amongst the people and a subject for the Poet?s lampoon, which were so common they were in Whitehall itself.?18 While many of these attitudes, like the comparisons to Mary Tudor, were tainted by the violent anti-Catholic sentiment sweeping England in the late seventeenth century, which will be discussed below, these tales vilified Mary of Modena in other ways. In the most innocent of these tales, she illustrated the ignorance and superstition not only of Catholics, but also of women who were seen as more susceptible to this misguided line of thinking. Her treatment in the most cruel ballads and chapbooks degraded her even further. In these texts, she proved to be little more than an adulteress, an accusation that would harm any woman regardless of religion or station. The rumors of an infertile queen and a faked pregnancy haunted Mary of Modena throughout the life of the Warming Pan myth. These portions of the myth laid the foundation for the more complicated and scandalous plots that followed. The announcement of the birth of the Prince of Wales, James, in June 1687/8, turned Protestant and Orangist fears into a reality. In response, the gossip picked up in intensity and evolved in complexity. Mary was not simply fooled into thinking herself pregnant, as some contended Mary Tudor had been; nor was she just ignorant. For many, there was little question that the birth of the Prince of Wales was the focal point for a vast conspiracy to dupe England and the world with a suspect child. Central to the conspiracy theories that emerged was a cabal of women, including Mary of Modena, her attendants, and midwives, who spirited the replacement child into the birth chamber in a warming pan. 55 The Stuarts and their supporters assumed that a successful birth in London would silence most of the rumors.19 However, as with her pregnancy, every inconsistent detail of the birth became fodder for the pamphleteers and the satirists, many of whom were funded by William of Orange.20 The fictions metastasized so quickly that even one of the potential originators and beneficiaries of these rumors, Mary of Orange, wrote to her sister, Anne, in an effort to discern fact from fiction.21 James II, too, thought that the rumors had gotten so out of control that he had to speak to them: ?the Malicious Endeavours of my Enemies have so poisoned the Minds of Some of my Subjects, that by Reports I have from all hands, I have Reason to believe, That very many do not think this Son with which God hath blessed Me, to be Mine, but a Supposed Child.? 22 Thus, he felt compelled to call together dozens of witnesses to publically attest to what they had witnessed in October 1687/8. The testimony provided by the king?s witnesses that followed offers a good view of the common birth myths that had emerged in the summer following the announcement of the birth in June. Additionally, this testimony also provided material to the purveyors of the warming pan myth to cultivate new tales. The claims of the witnesses indicate a number of obvious mistakes that the Stuarts wished to clear up. First, many of these witnesses swore that they saw the queen?s belly and the milk from her breasts, both sureties of her pregnancy.23 The inclusion of such testimony obviously was meant to counter gossips who, spurred on by Princess Anne?s charges, had accused Mary of faking the pregnancy for months. Princess Anne, who stood to gain if her stepmother was discredited, often complained that she and her ladies had not been privy to these signs of a true pregnancy.24 Secondly, judging by the number of witnesses and the attention paid to their station and religious affiliation, they wished to 56 dispel rumors that the birth had taken place behind closed doors where a baby swap could have taken place. James produced over fifty witnesses to the birth carefully noting whether the deponents were Protestant or Catholic to show that a number of Protestants witnessed the birth. Most importantly, a number of deponents included information in their testimony meant to contradict the idea that a substitute child had been introduced into the bed at birth in a warming pan. The midwife, Judith Wilkes, reported that a number of women saw her make the Queen?s bed proving that there was no trick. Furthermore, Margaret Dawson, one of the Queen?s ladies in waiting, reported that she saw a fire in the warming pan that was used to warm the bed.25 Others attested to seeing the midwife pull the child ?black and reeking? from the bed with umbilical cord still attached.26 Yet critics found fault with the depositions, especially the self-righteous approach to providing proof of the Queen?s pregnancy. Stuart opponents and their press claimed that those who testified seeing Mary of Modena?s swollen stomach and linens soiled from her milk were part of the plot. Instead of allowing Protestant ladies trusted by Princess Anne or Mary of Orange, Mary of Modena relied on Italian ladies.27 They also mocked Stuart supporters who balked at their demands for proof of authenticity. In one broadside, Mary of Modena?s nurse complains that during her pregnancy ?the Queen never went to piss, but they?d be calling of her water? and wonders why their plot did not convince everyone.28 The incredulity of Mary?s supporters was read by the royal family?s opponents as a sign of guilt. In many of these anti-Stuart tracts, the authors used a proven tactic to refute the signs of Mary of Modena?s pregnancy. They called the reliability of the eyewitnesses 57 into question. As in the example noted above, opponents of the royal couple believed that Mary?s Italian ladies were not honest. Though their loyalty to Mary of Modena made them suspicious enough, the pointed reference to their nationality revealed a distrust of foreign influence in such a sensitive matter. Opponents also directly attacked the Stuarts for not alerting ?lawful witnesses? who could acknowledge whether the Prince of Wales was indeed a ?counterfeit? as widely believed.29 For purveyors of the myth, the arrest of the most prominent Protestant bishops prior to the Queen?s labor for failing to cooperate with James II?s pro-Catholic policies added weight to this argument since they were expected to verify the legitimacy of the birth. Their exclusion continued to be cited for years as proof of a cover up.30 Instead of relying on the testimony of ?the chiefest men of religion and the greatest nobles and officers in the highest trust of the nation,? James II and Mary of Modena put their faith in people with ?weak understanding? or those ?bound to depend upon the favor of others for their support, like nurses, midwives, and other servants.?31 The accusation that the witnesses and Mary of Modena?s attending ladies were ill informed or had stupidly assented to participate in the plot out of greed appears elsewhere. The nurse in A Sham Prince Expos?d (1688) was depicted as reliant on the income from the plot saying ?I shall never hear such sweet Musick again, as the ringing of Guinea?s every now and then in my hand; beside, the Honorable Title of the Prince of Wale?s Nurse.?32 The accusation that the Stuarts could buy cooperation in a plot is not altogether surprising or unique despite the fact that most midwives hailed from socio- economically solid households.33 Yet the charges of incompetence on the part of the midwiving staff and the implication that these ?nurses and midwives? would collude in a 58 suppositious birth speaks to a wider mistrust of midwives that permeated all of the variations of the Warming Pan myth. *** From the beginning of Mary of Modena?s pregnancy, the midwife appeared as a prominent figure. It was the job of the midwife to mentor the mother through her last months of pregnancy, the actual birthing process, and the ?lying in? period following the birth until the mother regained her strength. It was the midwife who positioned the child in the womb and delivered it. As discussed in the previous chapter, the midwife possessed special feminine knowledge of birth that imbued her with a great deal of power particularly since it was commonly assumed that midwives had the ability to shape and determine a child?s sex, therefore guaranteeing a male heir.34 Furthermore, the midwife supposedly could determine the paternity of the child.35 Since they played such a critical role in the birthing process, Lisa Forman Cody argues that male midwives and obstetricians of the late seventeenth century feared their abilities and sought to supplant female midwives by smearing them as crude and limited in their knowledge.36 It was in the midst of the battle over the birthing process that Mary of Modena had to give birth. Like many women before her, Mary chose to employ a female midwife. Her choice, however, was scandalous not simply because of her gender, but her character. The Queen?s consultations with the controversial midwife, Elizabeth Cellier, became fodder for purveyors of the Warming Pan myth. For those that initially believed Mary of Modena to be pregnant in 1688, the proximity of such a notorious figure to the pregnant queen was enough to spark doubts. Cellier raised more eyebrows when she announced in January 1687/8 that James II had promised her that he would create a 59 college of midwives. At the time, the Anglican Church licensed midwives, but it is likely that the new college would assume such duties.37 Not only did this announcement appear in an atmosphere of open suspicion toward ?meddlesome midwives,? but it seemed to reverse the trend of replacing supposedly ill-informed female midwives with more trustworthy male midwives.38 Concentrating the power over birth in the hands of a group of ill-informed women led by someone, like Elizabeth Cellier, also set off alarms among the Orange faction. They were suspicious that this move was part of a midwives? conspiracy to guarantee a male heir for the pregnant Mary of Modena either through skill or subterfuge. When Cellier predicted that the queen would bear not one son but several more, opponents stressed that, indeed, a fix was on.39 They claimed that Cellier was ?cunning? and ?one of the fittest in such tricks.?40 Possibly to avoid some of the public criticism, Mary of Modena chose another midwife, Judith Wilkes, to see her through her birth and lying in, though she too was Catholic. The fear that Mary of Modena would recruit treacherous Catholic midwives to secure a male child triggered such paranoia that even an unrelated crime involving a midwife was tied to the queen?s desire for an heir. Though only one source references the connection, the announcement that a Catholic midwife, Mary Aubry, had killed her husband sent the gossip mills spinning that the crime might be related to the Queen?s suppositious pregnancy. According to the Tuscan ambassador, Terriesi, ?the story immediately flew around that [Mary Aubry] was to have been employed in bringing a suppositious Prince to the Queen at the proper time, that her husband, a butcher by trade, had discovered the secret and had consequently been made away with.?41 Not only did this rumor depict Mary of Modena as a treasonous wife who sought to pass off another 60 man?s child as her own, but she had pushed her midwife accomplice to kill her husband to prevent word of the plot from escaping. In this story, the queen is doubly treacherous for betraying her husband, the king, and for encouraging her ladies to betray their own husbands. Though the lack of corroborating broadsides or pamphlets makes it unlikely that this rumor gained much traction, the presumption of a connection between these two women based solely on profession and religion demonstrates the paranoia about these women whose positions afforded them the ability to upend their households as well as that of the entire kingdom. After the announcement of the birth in June 1688, Wilkes and Mary of Modena?s nurse, Mrs. DeLabadie, fell under severe scrutiny. Those opposed to James II attacked the credibility of these women severely calling them ?bigotted,? ?villainous,? dishonest, and ?treacherous.?42 Prints depicted the midwife, Wilkes, as a ?dark faced crone? offering a confession for her part in the plot.43 One pamphleteer suggested that the failure of the Stuarts to defend the Queen?s lying-in staff and bring in more reputable members to watch over them indicated that there was a secret to hide.44 Critics also questioned their competence calling DeLabadie unskilled and implied the same by criticizing the decision to trust only Wilkes with midwiving duties rather than include more competent and honest male midwives.45 According to one songwriter, the decision to entrust such unskilled, deceitful women with such a task proved the plot untenable. ?The Midwife told Tales, And ruin?d his Highness the Prince of Wales?Another laid all the whole blame on the Nurse.?46 These smears betrayed a fear of women who could prove potentially powerful and disruptive.47 By labeling these women as both duplicitous and incompetent, the authors evoked common perceptions of women as manipulative and 61 incapable of substantive medical knowledge.48 The authors of these tracts also echoed those mentioned earlier who wished to tarnish the reputation of female midwives in order to benefit men in the medical field.49 But Wilkes, the midwife, and DeLabadie, the nurse, did not simply endure name calling and character smears, they also became part of Mary of Modena?s conspiracy to secret a substitute child into the birthing chamber. According to one account, these women prepped the birthing room improperly and in secret allowing them to carry out Mary of Modena?s plot.50 Some authors criticized the queen and her staff for giving birth in St. James Palace which they claimed was the perfect place to fake a birth. It had false doors, chambers that were not secure, and one song even asserted that there was ?a hole i? th? wall.? Mary of Modena?s women used these secretive passages in order to sneak the child into the birthing room, usually in a warming pan.51 Since none of these tales credited Mary of Modena with giving birth, many speculated as to the true origins of the Prince of Wales and alleged that the birthing attendants played a key role in acquiring this child. One chapbook author purported that the plotters kept three pregnant surrogates nearby, so that if they went into labor the midwife could swipe the baby and place it with the Queen.52 Another lengthy account, published years later, cited a witness who reported seeing Mary?s women buzzing in and out of the room next to the Queen?s birthing chamber where one of these women gave birth.53 William Fuller, one of the most vocal proponents of the Warming Pan myth, offered the most extensive and malicious accounts of this kind. According to one of Fuller?s earliest versions of the myth, James II?s supporters, the Tyrconnells, brought a 62 ?big-bellied gentlewoman,? named Mary Grey, to St. James Palace just days before the Queen gave birth. After giving birth, he maintained that the midwife told that her child was still born and did not allow Grey to see it. Instead, the nurse, DeLabadie, spirited the child to the Queen?s chamber in a warming pan so the mother could never see it again. Fuller even claimed that Wilkes, ?the bigotted?midwife? kept the afterbirth in warm water to further enhance the authenticity of Mary of Modena?s fake birth.54 In all of these accounts, the midwife and the Queen?s other birthing women come under fire from the anti-Jacobite press. As discussed in the Aubry case, early modern English society viewed midwives as potentially threatening for their ability to impact paternity and control the birthing process. The midwives and nurses depicted in the Warming Pan myths stand as examples of a character common in the late seventeenth century, the midwife who switches or steals babies.55 Authors in this time period often cast midwives and birthing attendants, especially foreign and Catholic women, as the source of disorder and chaos.56 These stories fit into a familiar genre for early modern audiences and, as a result, might have been more plausible. *** Yet the intense focus on the midwife and the nurse obscures the real target of these attacks, Mary of Modena herself. Since the mainstream presses were unable to directly condemn the Queen without prompting their arrest, the midwife and nurse proved easy surrogates to degrade Mary of Modena.57 After all the authors of these tracts made it clear that these women were incapable of developing such a plot themselves, so they logically pointed to Mary of Modena and her Catholic allies as those who were truly responsible. Furthermore, those who wrote during the safety of William and Mary?s 63 reign often accused Mary directly. Fuller, for instance, unequivocally blamed Mary for ordering the death of Mary Grey, the allegedly true mother of the Prince of Wales, rather than risk her escaping to England from the nunnery in France where she had been placed for safe keeping.58 In these stories, the powerful Catholic queen, Mary of Modena, instigated the plot and influenced these women to treachery, not the other way around. She was the true villainess even if the authors could not say so. The purveyors of these stories also used Catholic figures, such as the Pope, James II?s confessor Father Peter, the Jesuits, and Louis XIV as proxy targets for Mary of Modena.59 Catholics provided a convenient substitute for a number of reasons. First, the religious tensions of late seventeenth century England made Catholics a convenient scapegoat for disorder. By pointing to previous experiences of Catholic treachery, such as those detailed by John Foxe, English Protestants felt their fears were justified.60 Secondly, creators of this propaganda often linked the Catholic conspiracy with outside interference from Catholic powers, such as Spain, France and Rome. In the case of the Warming Pan myth, the most visible champion of Catholicism in Europe in the late seventeenth century, Louis XIV of France, had very close ties to the Stuarts. While the Protestant elites loathed Louis for his absolutist and pro-Catholic policies, many believed James II so admired him that he would consent to anything Louis suggested.61 In an attempt to explain why these Catholic intrigues always failed to achieve their goals, popular images depicted Catholics as sexually rapacious, backward, bigoted, superstitious, and conniving. 62 Lastly, both James II and Mary of Modena had reputations as zealous Catholics who wished to advance the cause of the Church in England. After a number of failed attempts to produce a Catholic successor, many 64 believed that she was desperate and would resort to anything to please Rome. These images appeared in a number of the Warming Pan tracts and worked to paint Mary of Modena as an integral part of the latest in a string of Catholic plots to recapture England for the papacy. The historical fear of the grand Catholic conspiracy figures into the vast majority of tracts. Protestant authors claimed that priests were ?notorious for forgeries? and had ?contrived Queen Mary?s great belly for a counterfeit heir to the Crown.?63 Others saw the Pope as the instigator of this plot to defeat Protestantism in England.64 Usually authors followed these accusations with a recitation of previously foiled Catholic plots, like the Gunpowder Plot, where a group of Catholic conspirators attempted to blow up the Houses of Parliament, and the Exclusion Crisis, during which opponents tried to keep the Catholic James Stuart from taking the throne, to hammer home their inclination for conspiracies. Another figure that made Catholicism ripe for attack in the Warming Pan myths was Louis XIV. As the self-proclaimed champion of Catholicism and absolutist rule in the late seventeenth century, Louis XIV had earned a reputation among Protestants as someone who would stop at nothing to advance his own power. As such, he was widely despised throughout England, especially since James II?s sycophantic behavior towards Louis incited worry that he intended to bring ?the force of foreign laws? to England.65 Songwriters and chapbook authors pointed to Louis?s revocation of the Edict of Nantes as evidence that he wished to similarly stamp out Protestantism in England and was involved in the plot. Several saw his hand in the plot to bring an heir to the Stuarts including Fuller, who claimed that Louis XIV hid Mary Grey in a French nunnery, and 65 the author of the chapbook, A Melius Inquirendum into the Birth of the Prince of Wales (1689), who railed against Louis for using the plot as a power grab.66 As one of the foremost representatives of Catholicism and a foreign enemy, Louis XIV represented a great threat to English Protestants and a perfect target in these attacks.67 The ties between the Stuart court and the French king, Mary?s foreign origins, and their shared zeal to support Catholicism made collusion between Louis and Mary of Modena a very real possibility in the minds of English Protestant propagandists. She was demonized not only for consenting to a plot, but also for her foreign sympathies and association with enemies of England. Furthermore, these accounts abounded with negative images of stereotypical Catholic traits?overly sexual, ignorant, unrefined, and, corrupt?to justify why these foreign Catholic plots would fail. Many of these labels also worked to directly or implicitly defame Mary of Modena. One poet mocked the Queen saying that in order to get a child she need only ?patiently lie with one of Rome?s priests, with a crucifix?till ye?ve purchased an Heir, Thus got by means of?Prayers and Presents.?68 The poet depicted her as an adulteress who ?purchased? the assistance of the priests through sexual favors. Not only did this attack the reputation of the Queen as a woman, but it also marked the priest as one who used his office to mask his sexual crimes. Fuller?s tale about Mary Grey, reputedly the real mother of the Prince of Wales, also played on this idea of sexual impropriety. In his version, James II?s principal advisor on religious affairs, Lord Tyrconnell, debauched Mary Grey and, when she became pregnant, brought Grey to St. James Palace to give birth. Once at the palace, Fuller contended that her room adjoined a Catholic chapel and the Queen?s birthing chamber providing easy access 66 to bring the Grey?s child to Mary of Modena who claimed it as her own.69 Fuller depicted the devoutly Catholic Tyrconnell as a hypocritical depraved old man preying on a young girl and then using the product of his illicit affair to dupe the entire country. His decision to locate Mary Grey next to a chapel further linked the Catholic Church to the scheme. Several chapbooks and poems also referred to a belief among Catholics that Mary of Modena carried a new messiah begotten by divine means, an idea roundly condemned by the Protestant press. The mocking A Melius Inquirendum into the Birth of the Prince of Wales condemned a clueless Earl of Sunderland, who despite contrary evidence, swore that Mary of Modena received several visits from an angel announcing the birth of a son just as Mary did in the gospel accounts.70 Another chapbook, a satirical response to the witnesses at the birth, laughed off the notion that the Holy Ghost impregnated her saying that the ?apparition? was the Papal Nuncio who ?got it on the Queen.?71 Though it is unclear if the author wished to portray the Queen as a whore for sleeping with him or a fool for believing it a divine encounter, neither depiction flatters her and would only add to her negative reputation. Similarly, these tales also painted Catholics as irrational, superstitious fools whose faith in ritualistic behaviors often was blamed in their downfall. Catholic practices and belief in miracles often became subjects of ridicule. Protestant elites referred to the idea that Mary of Modena conceived after praying to this Catholic saint and bathing in holy waters, as ?popish legend? and ?fopperies.?72 Likewise, another song revels in the stupidity of Catholics who believed Father Peter when he said by ?holy water, and sweet perfume, and a holy Smock sent from Rome, did cause a young Infant to spring in her 67 Womb.?73 Yet another attack tied the Catholic belief in the transubstantiation of the bread and wine, an idea that Protestants found heretical and blasphemous, to Mary of Modena?s plot to secure an heir, a proposition that Protestants found equally as unbelievable and distasteful. A New Song of the Misfortunes of an Old Whore and her Brats (1688) sardonically asked ?if Priests cou?dn?t Create, at least Transubstantiate? a Prince of Wales.74 By attaching one of the most contentious yet important Catholic rituals to what the composer believed to be a grand lie, the ideas, and all Catholics who believed in them, became even more preposterous and offensive. While these anti- Catholic comments do not appear to directly critique Mary of Modena, critics were targeting Mary of Modena by ridiculing her beliefs and faith in the Church. The superstition, stupidity, dishonesty, and sexual promiscuity of Catholics became her traits because she adhered to this religion so fervently.75 Like Mary Aubry, Mary of Modena was represented by authors as a woman willing to subvert male authority. The authors of the attacks showed a Mary of Modena whose sex robbed her of reason and honesty. They employed a denigrating vocabulary and set of images against her that often was used to describe dangerous and disorderly women?deceitful, irrational, sinful, lusty, and threatening.76 Instead of describing Mary of Modena as chaste, quiet, virtuous and submissive, all expectations of a good wife, the authors described her as ?bigoted,? ?false,? ?conniving,? and malicious.77 These highly gendered terms, many of which were applied to Mary Aubry, implied that her deceit and wickedness resulted from a predisposition as a result of her sex. The Mary of Modena depicted by the chapbooks and poets of late seventeenth century England was like Eve in that she was sinful, dishonest, and prone to temptation. These descriptors also served to 68 reinforce the idea that she was an active player in the plot to pass off another child as her own and not a victim of her husband, the Church or Louis XIV. In fact, many of these portrayals depicted Mary as the instigator pushing James II to give in to her wishes. According to many purveyors of these myths, Mary typically pressured James to pursue policies of her choosing despite its negative impact on his ability to rule. The descriptions of her influence over James II ranged from a charming, coy woman that had the king wrapped around her finger to a spiteful and emotional Queen who ?wore the breeches? and ?imperiously commanded him? to do what she and her priests wished.78 Princess Anne, though not the most reliable source, confirmed that the notion of Mary?s dominance was widespread in a letter to her sister in the spring of 1687/8 saying that ?everybody believes that she presses the king to be more violent that he would be of himself.?79 Other accounts of their relationship delved into more personal matters like the rumor that Mary of Modena denied James II access to her bed, the most basic of marital rights bestowed on a husband.80 These allegations of a controlling wife and a spineless husband served to further denigrate the royal couple and entrenched Mary of Modena more firmly as the central player in the supposed plot to secure a male Stuart heir. Portrayals of Mary of Modena as an overbearing queen who pushed her weak husband around were shaped by conventional early modern beliefs about women and marital expectations. Rachel Weil contends that this fear of an overly influential queen was a common concern of the late seventeenth century. 81 Queens had unprecedented access to powerful men and could manipulate them using their feminine wiles. According to Weil and W.A. Speck, the only reason that Mary of Orange did not face the 69 same criticism as her step-mother was that she was aware of her limitations as a woman and deferred to her husband in matters of politics.82 This was an example of how a queen should behave. Mary of Modena, however, was commonly depicted as lacking her step daughter?s better judgment. She posed even more problems to seventeenth-century Protestant audiences because her religious allegiance to the Church made her less scrupulous than the average woman and, thus, more likely to direct her husband to pursue unholy designs. However, the fear of a dominant wife was not restricted by class or position, but applied equally to all wives. Seventeenth century Protestant society expected women to submit to a husband?s authority and those who failed were deemed threats to the entire social order.83 Husbands that failed to control their wives were labeled cuckolds, while their wives were referred to as adulterers or scolds.84 Though the intent of the authors may have been to depict James II as a cuckold in these accounts, they are just as informative about Mary as of James. For instance, they depicted James as weak and effeminate, while Mary of Modena comes off as a domineering scold. Commoners often found themselves subject to rituals of public humiliation, like charivari or riding the stang, to reprimand them for their failure to adhere to patriarchal standards of order, but such punishments could not possibly be applied to the king and queen.85 In some respects, these stories may have acted in much the same way seeking to punish the couple for destabilizing the patriarchal balance of society. Portraying Mary of Modena as a wife who controlled her husband, the Warming Pan myth turned Mary of Modena into a treasonous wife who endangered the entire nation with her unfaithful behavior. 70 In addition to depicting Mary of Modena as dictatorial and insubordinate, the Warming Pan myths followed the seventeenth century convention of linking disobedience to infidelity, which succeeded in destroying her sexual honor.86 The allegations that Mary of Modena slept with James II?s confessor, Father Peter, or another priest offer the most obvious evidence of these sexual slanders.87 The accounts also include a variety of veiled references to her as a whore or harlot.88 In early modern representations, the whore not only threatened to destabilize the individual household affected by a woman?s adultery, but also could undermine the marital relationships of the neighborhood and the community at large.89 In the case of Mary of Modena, opponents protested that the Queen?s bastard child would ?extinguish all the natural affections of a father to a child,? thereby undercutting the authority of the father.90 For early modern audiences, Mary of Modena sullied not only her own reputation with her infidelity, but also that of James II who could not control his wife or his family. This treason within the nation?s highest family would only serve to emasculate men throughout the nation and undermine the entire social order. These accounts made it clear that James could not be counted on to control Mary of Modena and, as a result, England faced dire circumstances under the sway of a harlot queen. Furthermore, her adultery corrupted the lawful line of succession since all subsequent children could not be considered genuine. Husbands expected their wives to remain faithful not simply to avoid being labeled a cuckold, but to defend their patriarchal and fatherly interests.91 The entire hiearchy rested on ?a system of honour that valorize[d] female chastity? to ensure that a family?s property was passed onto a legitimate heir.92 The anti-Jacobite press claimed that this was one of the considerations, 71 the viability and purity of the English line of succession, which justified their invitation of succession to William and Mary of Orange. In addition to voicing concerns about the influence of the Catholic Church and meddlesome midwives, these authors objected that the Stuarts tampered with the true line of succession. Protestant nobles bemoaned the fact that ?all the people are forced by fear of punishments to suffer a child to be declared Heir apparent of the Crown,? especially when most believed it to be a ?counterfeit.?93 They even asserted that while still awaiting the child, James?s supporters posited that even if the child was a girl she should succeed James II before Mary because she would have been born while he was king and not a duke.94 William Fuller also railed against this attempt to crown the ?son of a harlot? or ?set up a Bastard for king of these realms.?95 Such arguments revealed that a central plank in Orangeist arguments rested on the notion of defending patriarchal interests from the encroachment of Mary of Modena?s traitorous and unscrupulous feminine influence. In attempting to justify a revolt against James II and prevent a Catholic takeover, the authors of these tracts blamed Mary of Modena for polluting the line of succession and her marital bed. They crafted a caricature of Mary of Modena in order to create a fear of her as a powerful Catholic queen, a fear nor present in depictions of Protestant queens like Elizabeth I, Mary of Orange, or Anne I. This revealed a deep-seated fear of powerful Catholic women and their ability to shape state policy. By portraying her as the epitome of social upheaval, the authors warned readers about the implications of supplanting the cold reason of men with the hot irrationality of women. The ferocity with which she was attacked left it clear that they would not tolerate a woman who so blatantly challenged the basic gender relations of seventeenth century English society. Her 72 feminine flaws had spurred her disloyalty to her husband and state and these needed to be checked. Since her husband proved unwilling, the Stuart opposition filled the void, preventing the erosion of patriarchal social values and defending the state from its religious and political enemies, whether internal or external, real or imagined. The same qualities that caused public anxiety about Mary of Modena?her loyalty to an alien Catholicism, her dependence on the help of the treacherous midwife, and her willingness to betray patriarchal social norms with her scolding and infidelity?also appeared in the depictions of Mary Aubry. The fact that some in the public immediately connected these two familiar but threatening figures shows that the efforts of the press to demonize these women worked remarkably well and surprisingly fast. Aubry?s religious and occupational background, her crime, and betrayal of her husband resonated with a public who saw in her many of the same traits as the queen. Even though the direct connection lasted only for a brief moment, the similarity in the arguments used against these women shows a definite fear of women like them who represented a threat to patriarchal authority in such uneasy times. In a period of heightened anxiety, such women appeared as dangerous saboteurs who would wreak havoc on England?s families, churches, and government. In fact, the caricatures of these women proved so frightening and familiar that they would reappear even after these two particular women no longer jeopardized England in an effort to remind audiences of the threat this type of woman represented. 73 1 Mary Hopkirk, Queen over the Water: Mary Beatrice of Modena, Queen of James II (London: John Murray, 1953), 118; Speck, 218. 2 For example, see The Several Declarations Together with the Several Depositions Made in Council on Monday the 22nd of October 1688: Concerning the Birth of the Prince of Wales (London: 1688); Terriesi to Grand Duke of Tuscany, 18/28 May 1687/8 and undated June 1687/8, Queen Mary of Modena: Her Life and Letters, 181, 187; John Baber, To the King upon the Queen?s Being Deliver?d of a Son (London: 1688). 3 Weil, 89; Since the royalist response was so underwhelming and delayed, it will not be addressed in much depth here. 4 Weil argued that the Warming Pan myths demonstrated the blurred boundaries between gender and politics and proved that women were active participants in politics. Cody, on the other hand, used this episode in English history to illustrate how and why female midwives were replaced by male counterparts. 5 Francesco Terriesi to Grand Duke of Tuscany, 9/19 January 1687/8, Queen Mary of Modena: Her Life and Letters, 174. 6 Excerpt from Lord Clarendon?s diary, 15 January 1687/8 and Nuncio d?Adda to Cardinal Secretary of State Windsor, 23 April 1687/8, Queen Mary of Modena: Her Life and Letters, 175 and 180. 7 Princess Anne to Mary of Orange, 14 March 1687/8, John Dalrymple, Memoirs of Great Britain and Ireland; from the Dissolution of the Last Parliament of Charles II till the Capture of the French and Spanish at Vigo. A new edition, in three volumes, with the appendixes complete (Edinburgh: Strahan, Cadell, Bell, Creech, and Balfour, 1790), 2: 170 (appendix to Book V). 8 Terriesi to Grand Duke of Tuscany, January 1687/8, Queen Mary of Modena: Her Life and Letters, 174. 9 An Account of the Reasons of the Nobility and Gentry?s Invitation of His Highness the Prince of Orange into England: Being a Memorial from the English Protestants concerning their Grievances: with a Large Account of the Birth of the Prince of Wales, presented to their Highnesses the Prince and Princess of Orange (London: 1688), 11; A Full Answer to the Depositions; And to all other Pretences and Arguments Whatsoever, concerning the Birth of the Prince of Wales. The Intreague thereof detected, the Whole Design being set forth, with the way and manner of doing it. Whereunto is annexed, a map or survey engraven of St. James Palace, and the convent there: Describing the place where it is supposed the true Mother was delivered: With the particular doors and passages through which the Child was convey?d to the Queen?s Bed Chamber (London: 1689), 4. 10 The Sham Prince Expos?d. In a Dialogue between the Pope?s Nuncio and Bricklayers Wife, Nurse to the Supposed Prince of Wales (London: 1688). 11 Speck, 207. 12 John Foxe, Idem Iterum, or the History of Queen Mary?s Big Belly (n. p.: 1688). 13 John Foxe, Actes and Monuments of matters most speciall and memorable, happening in the Church with an universall history of the same. Wherein is set forth at large the whole race and course of the Church, from the primitive age to these latter times of ours, with the bloudy times, horrible troubles, and great persecutions against the true martyrs of Christ, sought and wrought as well by heathen emperours, as now lately practised by Romish prelates, especially in this realme of England and Scotland. Now againe, as it was recognised, perused, and recommended to the studious reader by the author Maister Iohn Foxe, the fift time newly imprinted. Anno. 1596. Mens. Iun (London: 1596). 14 A Full Answer to the Depositions, 3. 15 Hopkirk, 119. 16 Loretto and Winifred or a New Way of Getting of Children, viz. By Prayers and Presents (n. p.: 1688). 17 A Melius Inquirendum into the Birth of the Prince of Wales: or An Account of Several New Depositions and Arguments Pro and Con, and the Final Decision of that Affair by the Grand Inquest of Europe being a Supplement to the Depositions Publish?d by Authority October Last (London: 1689). 18 An Account of the Reasons of the Nobility and Gentry?s Invitation of His Highness the Prince of Orange into England, 10. 19 Terriesi to Grand Duke of Tuscany, 18/28 May 1687/8 and undated June 1687/8, Queen Mary of Modena: Her Life and Letters, 181, 187; Baber. 20 Weil, 91. 21 Mary, Princess of Orange, to Princess Anne of Denmark, 21 July 1687/8, Dalrymple, 2:177-179 (appendix to part V). 22 The Several Declarations Together, 5. 74 23 For example, see testimony of Elizabeth Lady Marchioness of Powis, Anne Countess of Aran, and Dame Isabella Wentworth, The Several Declarations Together, 7, 8, 14. 24 Princess Anne to Mary of Orange, 18 June 1687/8, Dalrymple, 2: 175-176. 25 The Several Declarations Together, 16, 20-21. 26 Ibid., 19-20, 24. 27 An Account of Reasons of the Nobility and Gentry?s Invitation of His Highness the Prince of Orange into England, 19. 28 A Sham Prince Expos?d. 29 An Account of Reasons of the Nobility and Gentry?s Invitation of His Highness the Prince of Orange into England, 1. 30 William Fuller. Twenty Six Depositions of Persons of Quality and Worth with Letters of the Late Queen, Father Corker; and several others writ by Mrs. Mary Grey, Proving the Whole Management of the Suppositious Birth of the Pretended Prince of Wales and that the said Mary Grey was Barbarously Murther?d by the French King?s Immediate Order (London, 1702), 17. 31 An Account of Reasons of the Nobility and Gentry?s Invitation of His Highness the Prince of Orange into England, 13. 32 A Sham Prince Expos?d. 33 Doreen Evenden, The Midwives of Seventeenth Century London (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), 138-169 as quoted in Cody, 34-35. 34 Cody, 32; Bicks, 1. 35 Bicks, 5. 36 Cody, 13, 32-34, 43-47. 37 Elizabeth Cellier, To Dr. _____ an Answer to his Queries Concerning the Colledg of Midwives (n. p.: January 1688). 38 Cody, 3, 13, and 46. 39 Cellier. 40 A Full Answer to the Depositions, 3. 41 Terriesi to Grand Duke of Tuscany, undated [January/February] 1687/8, Queen Mary of Modena: Her Life and Letters, 179. 42 A Full Answer to the Depositions, 4; Fuller, Twenty Six Depositions of Persons of Quality and Worth, 60; A Poem on the Deponents Concerning the Birth of the Prince of Wales (London: 1688). 43 The Confession of Judith Wilkes, the Queen?s Midwife, (n. p.: 1689) as quoted in Cody, 77. 44 A Full Answer to the Depositions, 6. 45 Ibid., 6-7. 46 A New Song of Lulla By (London: 1688). 47 Weil, 94; Bicks, 105. 48 Fletcher, 73-78. 49 Cody, 3 and 13. 50 Fuller, Twenty Six Deposition sof Persons of Quality and Worth, 17-18. 51 A Full Answer to the Depositions, 7-8; A New Song of Lulla By; An Account of the Reasons of the Nobility and Gentry?s Invitation of His Highness the Prince of Orange into England,21-22; Fuller, Twenty Six Depositions of Persons of Quality and Worth, 13-14. 52 A Melius Inquirendum, 8. 53Fuller, An Humble Appeal to the Impartial Judgment of all Parties in Great Britain, Concerning the Spurious Birth and Pretensions of the Pretender. Or, A full Proof of his being the Son of Mrs. Mary Grey; Particularly demonstrated by uncorrupted Evidence, in the whole Matter of Truth (London: 1716), 6-7. 54 Fuller, Twenty Six Depositions of Persons of Quality and Worth, 11-18. 55 Bicks, 31. 56 Ibid., 105. 57 Cody, 73. 58 Fuller, Twenty Six Depositions of Persons of Quality and Worth, 4-5; 59 Cody, 73. 60 For a fuller examination of the idea of Catholic treason in English history, see John Miller?s Popery and Politics in England 1660-1688 (1973) or Frances E. Dolan?s Whores of Babylon: Catholicism, Gender, and Seventeenth Century Print Culture (1999). 75 61 Carswell, 168. 62 Dolan, Whore of Babylon, 4. 63 An Account of the Reasons of the Nobility and Gentry?s Invitation of His Highness the Prince of Orange into England, 10 and 19. 64 Mercurius Reformatus, or the New Observator, 17 July 1689; A New Song of the Misfortunes of an Old Whore and her Brats (London: 1688); A Sham Prince Expos?d; A Poem on the Deponents Concerning the Birth of the Prince of Wales. 65 Miller, 197-199; An Account of the Reasons of the Nobility and Gentry?s Invitation of His Highness the Prince of Orange into England, 1. 66 Fuller, Twenty Six Depositions of Persons of Quality and Worth, 3; A Melius Inquirendum, 9-14 67 Dolan, Whore of Babylon, 6. 68 Loretto and Winifred or a New Way of Getting of Children, viz. By Prayers and Presents. 69 Fuller, Twenty Six Depositions of Persons of Quality and Worth, 2, 16. 70 A Melius Inquirendum, 3. 71 A Full Answer to the Depositions, 4. 72 An Account of the Reasons of the Nobility and Gentry?s Invitation of His Highness the Prince of Orange into England, 9; A Full Answer to the Depositions, 4. 73 A New Song of Lulla By. 74A New Song of the Misfortunes of an Old Whore and her Brats. 75 For support Stuart opponents could remind English audiences of her well-known enthusiasm for the Church and wish to advance its cause. Despite her original decision to remain celibate and enter a nunnery, she did relent to the wishes of the Pope and marry James II for the greater good of the Church. See Pope Clement X to Princess Mary of Modena, 19 September 1673/4, Queen Mary of Modena: Her Life in Letters, 21 and Loretto and Winifred or a New Way of Getting of Children, viz. By Prayers and Presents; Fuller, Twenty Six Depositions of Persons of Quality and Worth, 4-5. 76 Stone, Family, Sex, and Marriage, 198; Fletcher, 4, 64. 77 An Account of the Reasons of the Nobility and Gentry?s Invitation of His Highness the Prince of Orange into England, 16; Anne to Mary of Orange 13 March 1687/8, Queen Mary of Modena: Her Life and Letters, 170; A Full Answer to the Depositions, 2; Hopkirk, 29. 78 A Poem on the Deponents Concerning the Birth of the Prince of Wales; A New Song of the Misfortunes of an Old Whore and her Brats; A Full Answer to the Depositions, 2; A Sham Prince Expos?d. 79 Anne to Mary of Orange, 9 May 1687/8, Dalrymple, 2: 173-174. 80 A Sham Prince Expos?d. 81 Weil, 87, 171; Fletcher, 73-75. 82 Weil, 107-109; W.A. Speck, ?William?and Mary?? in The Revolution of 1688-1689: Changing Perspectives ed. Lois G. Schwoerer (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), 135. 83 David E. Underdown. ?The Taming of the Scold: The Enforcement of Patriarchal Authority in Early Modern England,? in Order and Disorder in Early Modern England ed. Anthony Fletcher and John Stevenson (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985), 127. 84 Fletcher, 270-273. 85 Ibid., 273-274. 86 Underdown, 131. 87 Loretto and Winifred or a New Way of Getting of Children, viz. By Prayers and Presents; A Full Answer to the Depositions, 4. 88 Loretto and Winifred or a New Way of Getting of Children, viz. By Prayers and Presents; Fuller, Twenty Six Depositions of Persons of Quality and Worth, 2 89 Gowing, Common Bodies, 30; Gowing, Dangerous Words, 87-88. 90 An Account of the Reasons of the Nobility and Gentry?s Invitation of His Highness the Prince of Orange into England, 23. 91 Bick, 25. 92 Gowing, Dangerous Words, 113. 93 An Account of the Reasons of the Nobility and Gentry?s Invitation of His Highness the Prince of Orange into England, 1 94Ibid., 9. 95 Fuller, Twenty Six Depositions of Persons of Quality and Worth, 2-3.