Queen Anne

British Society of Eighteenth Century Studies

Queen Anne, a new play by Kate Glover which the Historia Theatre Company premiered at the Baron’s Court Theatre last week, is timed to coincide with the tercentenary of the death of the last Stuart queen and the subsequent Hanoverian succession. The succession is a matter very much on the mind of the Queen as she struggles to exert her authority over recalcitrant ministers, wage war against France and shore up her position against other claimants to the throne, not least her half-brother, James Stuart, the Jacobite Pretender.

With any play that attempts to portray a large span of history – the play opens in the depths of the Glorious Revolution of 1688 and ends with Anne’s death in 1714 – the author must make difficult decisions on where to focus her dramatic energies. With the exception of the Act of Union of 1707, Queen Anne covers all the major events of Anne’s reign, including the Act of Settlement (1701), the Battle of Blenheim (1704), the Invasion Crisis (1708) and the Peace of Utrecht (1713-14) as well as charting the growth of factional party-oriented politics. This breadth means that the play sometimes takes on an expositionary character, with a large amount of factual information being imparted through the dramatic device of Dr Jonathan Swift in conversation with the shade of the Electress Sophia, whose death, only a few months before that of Anne, led ultimately to the accession of her son as George I. These interludes did at times seem over-long but the humour in the exchanges prevented them from becoming tiresome; they would also, of course, be of great use to someone unfamiliar with the period.

The play’s main focus is on Anne’s turbulent relationship with Sarah Churchill, later Duchess of Marlborough, and the friendship’s effect on how Anne formed her government ministries. Churchill identified as a Whig; Anne, though formally above the shifting partisan politics of her time, seems to have had natural sympathy for the Tory interest with its pre-eminent concern for the Church of England. As this play portrays it, a strong friendship, in which the domineering Sarah had considerable influence over the quieter Anne, went sour. The worsening of relations between the women led to Sarah’s fall from favour and the rise of Abigail Masham, a cousin of Sarah Churchill but also a cousin of Robert Harley, Earl of Oxford and a notable Tory, much to the fury of the Whig faction. Women, even when queens, are often said to have had little political power in this period, but the play looks closely at how friendship and favour can lead to power and influence. It was good to see such 'soft skills', ably wielded, take centre stage in this work. The alleged lesbian relationships between both Churchill and Anne and Masham and Anne are hinted at with reference to the lurid press of the time, but it is plain from the play that it is not thought that the relationship between Masham and Anne was anything more than friendship, cynically exploited by the Whig faction. The scholarly debate on this matter, of course, continues!

The evening saw some excellent performances from the cast. Kate Glover was regal as Electress Sophia, with Peter Kenny an amusing and affable Jonathan Swift, with sharp humour and knowing asides. Hilary Derrett as Sarah Churchill was suitably scheming, overbearing and at times downright unpleasant, but also touching in her love for her husband John Churchill and her eventual regret at having fallen from grace. Earl Godolphin (Richard Ward) and John Churchill (Paul Croft) brought a smile to the face – the lanky Ward and the somewhat shorter Croft may have looked somewhat incongruous side-by-side on their first entrance but both men produced nuanced performances in which they balanced personal and party gain against genuine respect for their Queen and country. Hilary Field as Mrs Masham was a glorious mixture of innocence and condescension as she gloried in her own rise to favour, ably supported by a solid display from Mark Phillip Compton as Robert Harley. At the centre of it all was Queen Anne, played by Rosemary Smith. Smith faced a difficult task in this role: how to play a shy and somewhat retiring character and (as in history) avoid being overshadowed by the sparky Sarah Churchill? Smith’s interpretation was of a woman who, supported by a husband (Prince George of Denmark) whom she loved dearly, grew in power and confidence throughout her life despite her grief at his death, her own serious health problems and inability to produce an heir. After a slightly muted start, Smith managed to portray both vulnerability and strength which made her affecting and sympathetic.

The Baron’s Court Theatre is an intimate venue, just fifty seats, with an in-the-round seating arrangement and a tiny stage space. Director Kenneth Michaels utilised this well to add to the feeling of claustrophobia and secrecy of court life. The cast made good use of the space, albeit with a slight tendency to favour the front view. Simple furniture and excellent sound and lighting design enabled the play to move seamlessly between years and different palaces. Costumes were period-appropriate, although as a reviewer with a particular interest in the dress and hair of the eighteenth century I would have liked to see more attention paid to the women’s hairstyles, which were rather too severe – looser buns and flowing ringlets would have been ideal – and head-dresses were rather anachronistically set on plastic headbands, which remained a minor niggle throughout the evening!

It’s always excellent to see new writing attempting to bring history to life and Kate Glover made a sterling effort to capture the elusive character of Anne as well as make the period accessible and interesting to the audience. At times the dialogue was slightly clunky and some more attention should have been paid to the correct way in which persons of rank were addressed in the period, but these minor issues do not detract from the overall achievement. The more pedantic members of the audience would, I suspect, take issue with Sarah Churchill’s description of the Jacobite faction as ‘terrorists’ but Glover was deliberately intending to provoke debate and draw parallels with the modern world. All in all, it is a well-researched and thoughtful piece of writing with moments of genuine pathos and a fascinating exploration of female friendship. Aficionados of the period should definitely make the trip to see what they make of this interpretation of one of England’s most misunderstood Queens.

— Miranda Reading, King's College London - British Society of Eighteenth Century Studies

Queen Anne 

A royal crisis is at hand: there is no British heir, Queen Anne has suffered the tragedy of miscarriages, the betrayal of friends and the threat of the Jacobites in a reign that sizzles with intrigue. Unfortunately, Kate Glover’s new play is more history lesson than historical drama.

The framing device - in which satirist Jonathan Swift and the dead Electress of Hanover (mother of George I, Anne’s eventual heir) discuss her reign - is unwieldy and expository dialogue subsumes the dramatic tension of unfolding events. As a result, there is little insight into Anne’s inner character as the play hurdles through more than 20 years across 22 short scenes. Rosemary Swift’s Anne remains a cipher.

Hilary Derrett and Peter Kenny bring plenty of energy to the stage as the scheming Duchess of Marlborough and Jonathan Swift and there is good support from Mark Philip Compton.

The sound design by Michael Murray effectively sets, and changes, the scenes with a mixture of music, speech and effects. The costumes are eye-catching although the men’s wigs block the actors’ faces from view at several points.

This year marks the 300th anniversary of Anne’s death and the accession of George I. While this new play makes a valiant attempt to share the Queen’s story, it fails to spark her back to life.

— Natalie Wollman - The Stage

Tightrope spanning history and drama

★★★★☆

Kate Glover’s Queen Anne is one of those plays that walks the difficult tightrope that is historical drama. Getting it right and neither teetering towards historical verity at the expense of a good story nor milking the drama while riding roughshod over factual accuracy is a big ask; and to a great extent, Queen Anne manages to do that. 

The play spans the years between 1688 and 1714, blurring the lines between strict chronology and dramatic device by using conversations between the recently deceased Sophia, Electress of Hanover (Kate Glover) and author Jonathan Swift (Peter Kenny) to narrate and explain the other action, taking place in and around the court of Queen Anne.

The play focuses on the deteriorating relationship between Queen Anne (Rosemary Smith), described as “shy, gout-ridden and overweight,” and her former friend and one time confidante Sarah Churchill (Hilary Derrett). The backdrop of complex and alarming political machinations involving advisors and members of court show the implications when lines of friendship and duty are blurred and that aspect echoes through modern politics and daily life today. 

All the performances were confident and balanced, thanks to Kenneth Michael’s assured direction, and it was great to see so many strong female roles, especially in a play with a political theme. Rosemary Smith (Queen Anne) portrayed the main character’s journey from shy and easily manipulated newly-crowned monarch to a strong, if lonely sovereign with sympathy and integrity. It provided a contrast to the character of the manipulative Duchess of Marlborough, which Hilary Derrett made convincing in both aspects of her “Jekyll and Hyde” personality. Other performances of note were Peter Kenny, who provided sympathy and engagement as a bridge between characters and the audience and Paul Croft whose Duke of Marlborough provided a robust foil to Sarah Churchill’s waspishness.

The costumes were sumptuous and elevated the play from the tiny stage with minimal set, in the very modest Barron’s Court Theatre, to make it seem a far more opulent production.

I came out impressed by the writing, the performances and the costumes. I loved the story of power and friendship, of love, loss and betrayal, but, despite the helpful explanations from Dr Swift, I’m still a little bamboozled by the important but incredibly complex political power struggles that formed so much of the plot of the play. And I’m still not sure of the difference between a Tory and a Whig.

— Penny Culliford - Remotegoat

Queen Anne

I will admit that I was skeptical of a play about Queen Anne of England (r. 1702-1714). It seemed that her reign was not productive of much drama, especially in comparison with the political machinations and cultural productions of such figures as John Churchill, Duke of Marlborough, his wife and duchess, Sarah Churchill, Robert Harley, Duke of Oxford, Jonathan Swift, Alexander Pope, Joseph Addison, and Richard Steele. How could a play hold one’s interest if it focused on the sad figure of Anne, who gave birth to seventeen children, only to see all of them die either in infancy or soon thereafter? Kate Glover, author of the new Queen Anne, produced by the Historia Theatre Company, however, finds the material in Anne and her reign for an involving and affecting play that builds a portrait of Anne as a woman with limitations, but also with some surprising strengths. The play succeeds by avoiding a trap into which other historical writers such as Thackeray (in Henry Esmond) have fallen when they try to portray Swift, Steele, and other major literary figures as principal characters in their plots. Since the personalities and thoughts of these figures are so much more complex in their writings than they are in the works of others, the results fall short.  

Glover wisely concentrates on Anne and her character as it emerges through the history of her relations with Sarah and John Churchill and later her friend Abigail Masham. In Queen Anne, Swift plays a role only as part of a framing conversation between himself and the recently deceased Sophia, Electress of Hanover, granddaughter of James I, and mother of George I, a deliciously acerbic presence, played here by the author herself. The play depicts Anne as deeply committed to the Protestant succession and to ruling not through parties but through a ministry of the most able for the good of the whole country. Unfortunately her reign came at a time of sharp and rising political antagonism and the consolidation of the modern political parties of Whig and Tory. Unfortunately also, her long-time confidante and friend since childhood, Sarah, proves to be an enterprising, even a fierce, advocate for the Whigs. 

We see the nature of their friendship in the early scenes—the way Anne relies on Sarah for support, encouragement, and advice. Sarah’s political position is strengthened by her husband’s military victories in Flanders. But she becomes increasingly domineering toward the queen, forcing the appointment of her son-in-law as Secretary of State in the Whig ministry of Godolphin, for example. The play effectively gives the sense of the jockeying for position between rival cliques, parties, and personalities, with all the players seeking to persuade Anne to their position. 

The dramatic heart of the play consists of Anne’s eventual painful decision to break with Sarah. After this split, once Anne throws off the bullying Sarah, Anne comes more into her own, making her own decisions, not only appointing Harley to replace Godolphin as Lord Chancellor, but also relieving Harley of his duties a few years later when he proved to be strangely neglectful and ineffective. Anne finds a strength that would not have been predicted of her in the last years of her life, and in good part because of measures she pursued in those years, the kingdom witnessed a smooth and peaceful transfer of power from one family to another, despite the claims of James II’s son in France and his supporters in Britain. 

The play makes effective use of ephemeral productions of the time, street ballads, pamphlets, letters, and articles from the Examiner (edited and often written by Swift). These help enrich the context for the struggle of personalities and interests around Anne. But it is the superb cast that brings the play to life. Readers of EMW will be interested in knowing of the important roles for women in this play, especially Sarah Churchill and Queen Anne. Sarah (Hilary Derrett) is appropriately sharp-tongued, energetic, sure of herself, and used to getting what she wants, able to make belittling comments with the most innocent face and intonation. She relies so much on her old girlish friendship with Anne that she moves without self-awareness from providing support and advice to commanding and bullying the Queen, becoming indignant when Anne has finally had enough. (This view of Sarah conforms closely to Swift’s opinion of her, but I have been assured that someone who only knows Sarah from her own self-justifying memoirs can also thoroughly enjoy the play.)

As Anne, Rosemary Smith is a revelation: pious, conscientious, averse to conflict, often uncertain of which course to take. When she decides to separate herself from Sarah, she finds a way of doing so without a show of temper or expostulation. With eyes cast down, she conveys her fixed determination clearly and effectively. She will continue to rely on the duke, her general, but has no further need for her former friend. There must have been some great strength in a woman who could survive without being debilitated by trauma the deaths of all seventeen of her children. Smith uses her powerful voice to good effect to convey this latent strength throughout Her persuasive portrayal of Anne changed the way I think of this monarch, and I have worked on the literature of her reign for several decades. 

As Mrs. Masham, who replaced Sarah in Anne’s friendship, Hilary Field shows a stolid ability to stand up to Sarah and protect Anne. Paul Croft’s Marlborough has all the self-important gravity of the successful general. Godolphin (Richard Ward) and Harley (Mark Philip Compton) are constantly scheming politicians.

As interlocutors and a chorus commenting on the past actions on the stage and the state of the British political system, Princess Sophia and Swift (Peter Kenny) have a great chemistry: she quizzical and questioning; he, the well-laced observer attempting to be polite to this inquisitive ghost. 

This is a first-rate production of an engrossing play that makes Anne and her period come newly alive.  

— Frank Palmeri - University of Miami - Early Modern Women: An Interdisciplinary Journal, vol. 9.2 (spring 2015)

History Lessons on the Fringe

★★☆☆☆

Kate Glover’s new play, 'Queen Anne', produced by The Historia Theatre company, is set in the first decade of the eighteenth century during the reign of the eponymous monarch, the last of the House of Stuart. Glover’s play addresses the many problems faced by Anne during her twelve-year reign, in particular the claim to the English throne of her half-brother, James Stuart, and the constant attempts by her overbearing friend, Sarah Churchill, Duchess of Marlborough, to influence Anne’s politics. These eventually became too much to bear and the Duchess was replaced in 1710 by Mrs Masham as her favourite. The play appears to have one main aim: to restore Anne’s lacklustre reputation and show her, after all, to have been a strong queen. 

'Queen Anne', however, suffers from two main faults. 

First, it contains very little action – this is especially noticeable, perhaps, in a period drama – and a great deal of dialogue, far too much to keep audience awake on a hot July evening! Adroit pruning by the director, Kenneth Michaels, would certainly have gone some way to make this verbose piece more accessible. The relatively static character of the play is unfortunately not attenuated by a director who appears content to have actors come on, deliver their lines, albeit at some volume, then go off. Heavy period costumes, doubtless historically accurate but clearly impeding movement, cannot have helped to liberate actors in their performance and interaction with one another. The cast certainly do their best, all eight actors deserving praise for their talent, energy and engagement with a challenging text, but they are not assisted by the direction which has done little to vary the pace, and is mostly conservative in approach, while allowing the Queen and the Duchesse to shout at each other in one unlikely confrontation in Act One -- a scene that was also both physically uncomfortable for audience and dramatically unsubtle. The device of having the satirical author, Jonathan Swift, onstage throughout, to comment on events, engage in conversation with characters, and occasionally to provide contemporary information, is a potentially interesting but insufficiently developed feature. Swift's role is entirely confined to speech, while this talented and experienced actor could so easily have been directed to play the famous author in a more imaginative and perhaps more physical manner, though this would have demanded a more playful script with a lesser commitment to historical validity and more openness to fantasy.

Glover’s play’s second principal weakness is indeed to confuse drama with a history lesson. While 'Queen Anne' may certainly be of historical interest, as Racine observed some three and a half centuries ago, truth is not necessarily dramatically compelling. No play on this subject has, to my best knowledge, been staged before. There may well be good reasons for this. In sharp contrast, Howard Brenton’s spell-binding historical piece, 'Anne Boleyn', inspired by the far more colourful life of an earlier Queen Anne, teaches that good drama needs to be much more than an account of lived experience, however historically accurate.

— John Phillips - Remotegoat