Secret History of the Court of England, from the Accession of George the Third to the Death of George the Fourth, Volume 2 (of 2) Including, Among Other Important — Inside the Classic

A Coronation as Confrontation

Hamilton's description of the coronation is less a ceremonial record than a courtroom indictment. She notes that the queen went at an early hour, accompanied by two ladies and one gentleman—a detail that underscores her isolation. The repeated refusal at door after door is narrated with a rhythm that builds frustration. Hamilton then shifts to a conditional argument: had the queen been attended by all the noblemen who supported her cause, could she have been refused admittance? The question is rhetorical, but it reveals the author's belief that the queen's failure was not inevitable but a result of poor strategy. Throughout, Hamilton's diction is precise: she distinguishes between an imperative right to be crowned and an undoubted title to be present, a legalistic nuance that frames the event as a breach of propriety rather than law.

The Duke of York: A Case Study in Royal Failure

Hamilton's treatment of the Duke of York is among the most caustic passages in the volume. She recounts how the prince, after returning from Germany, confined his achievements to parading in St. James's Park and frequenting the Tennis Court in James-street, with relaxation among the nymphs of Berkeley-row. The sarcasm is layered: the phrase Hope of the Family is quoted from his parents, only to be undercut by a story of the prince falling senseless under a table, where his elder brother mockingly baptizes him with the same words. Hamilton then pivots to his debts, noting that his creditors are still testifying in 1832, and accuses George IV of breaking a deathbed promise to pay them, preferring instead the demands of a mercenary mistress. The passage is dense with specific accusations—jewels valued at £150,000, a bequest to a sister from an insolvent estate, and a bishopric awarded at eleven months old—each chosen to illustrate a pattern of corruption.

The Rhetoric of Moral Outrage

Hamilton's prose is driven by a consistent rhetorical strategy: she presents a fact, then immediately questions its morality. After noting the Duke of York's election as Bishop of Osnaburgh at eleven months old, she asks, how capable a child of this age was to perform the duties of a bishop! The exclamation mark is typical; Hamilton often uses punctuation to heighten indignation. She also employs direct address to the reader, as in we leave the reader to judge, and rhetorical questions that assume a shared sense of outrage. Her vocabulary is blunt: wanton disgrace, common swindler, corpulent charms. These choices are deliberate, aiming to strip away the deference usually accorded to royalty and replace it with the language of scandal sheet journalism. The effect is a narrative that feels both personal and prosecutorial.

Structure and Evidence in a Partisan History

Hamilton organizes her material not chronologically but thematically, clustering anecdotes around individuals or events to maximize damning effect. The coronation section leads to the queen's treatment, which then branches into the Duke of York's misdeeds, each supported by specific figures—£150,000 in jewels, a bishopric at eleven months—that lend an air of documentary precision. Yet the excerpts reveal gaps: Hamilton does not always name her sources, and her claims about the queen's rights are asserted rather than argued from statute. The reader is left to weigh the specificity of the details against the obvious partisanship. This tension is central to the work's character: it is a secret history that demands to be read as exposé, but its evidence is often circumstantial, and its tone is unapologetically hostile to the court.

Readers approaching this volume should attend to Hamilton's use of detail—the precise sums, the quoted phrases, the named locations—as both a strength and a limitation. Her accusations are vivid but rarely corroborated by other sources, and her moral certainty can obscure the complexity of the events she describes. The book is best read as a specimen of early nineteenth-century political polemic, where the line between history and satire is deliberately blurred. For those interested in the period's court culture, it offers a counter-narrative to official accounts, but one that must be weighed against its evident bias.