1714-1760 Early Georgian Age

 "When George in pudding time came o’er, and moderate men looked big, sir

My principles I changed once more, and I became a Whig, sir

And thus preferment I procured from our new Faith’s Defender,

And almost every day abjured the Pope and the Pretender”

The penultimate verse from the Vicar of Bray seems appropriate. This clergyman simply embraced all religious and political forms favoured by the monarch of the day. And determined to keep his post, there were five regimes to which he had to accommodate between 1685 and 1714. But in fact the whole country was always similarly adjusting.

Hanoverian succession

When Queen Anne died in August 1714, George, Elector of Hanover, became King of Great Britain and Ireland via the Act of Settlement. And the family descendants under the name 'Windsor' still reign today. George succeeded as Anne’s closest living Protestant relative. He has had a mainly bad press from history (as has his son George II). Ridiculed by his subjects, he was thought dim and wooden, was shy in the public sphere and was believed to have several German mistresses. At first his spoken English was bad. His heart was in Hanover where he made several trips when King. In short he was seen as just ‘too German’. 

George I, Kneller

But is this fair? Who wrote the history at the time and what were their biases? Was there a religious element to the negative view portrayed? George stayed on as ruler of the Duchy/Electorate of Brunswick-Lüneburg (Hanover), so was this poor opinion shared on his home patch and in mainland Europe generally? Taking a wider view of the period, was its reputation for corruption, drunkenness, with economic and social disaster - as depicted in the Hogarth prints for instance - justified?

To start with George I. He and his wife Sophia Dorothea had a son, also George, but the marriage failed. They split up in 1689. George’s mistress, Melusine von der Schulenburg, openly acted as consort and hostess until George I died in 1727. She came with him to England. There’s no record of other mistresses and they seemed a devoted couple.

Melusine von der Schulenburg

George, 54 when he became British King, was overawed on his arrival in London in September 1714. The place was already a major European city, 20 times the size of Hanover. An absolute ruler back home, in London George had to reign through Parliament. He backed the Whigs who favoured the Protestant succession. As many Tories wanted the Stuarts back, in practice he was left with little choice.

Whigs and Tories

A word about the British political divide. It had its roots in the Civil War but dated directly from the Exclusion crisis of 1679-81. Whigs thought Catholic James should be excluded from the succession while Tories thought the opposite. In general, Tories believed in landed property, title, monarchy (right or wrong) and the Church of England. Whigs also believed in property but thought Parliament should trump monarchy, and wanted greater legitimacy for the growing number of Non-Conformists.

Perhaps contrary to popular belief, the rural gentry rather than the aristocracy were the backbone of the Tory party. The Whigs drew strength from the old nobility allied with a new urban class based on trade and the professions. There were often splits within the parties, of course, but Hanoverian support for the Whigs helped them maintain ascendancy for an amazing 50 years. They were guided by Sir Robert Walpole ('Cock Robin'), a shrewd politician who controlled the Commons and held power for 20 years as Britain’s first recognised Prime Minister.

Sir Robert Walpole, Arthur Pond

Many denigrating George I at the time were Tory political opponents. Later on, those in the 19^th century often viewed the Stuart supporting Jacobites romantically and sympathetically. 20^th century voices were clearly anti-German and anti-Protestant in their sentiments. George may have had poor English at the start, but documents from later in his reign showed he understood, spoke and wrote English. Continental Europe saw him as a progressive supporter of the Enlightenment, and the German archives have allowed a more generous re-assessment. George was affectionate and sensitive. He took on a precarious throne, and left it secure in the hands of Parliament. As Thackeray was to put it, “....he was better than a king out of St Germains (James the Pretender), with the French king’s orders in his pocket and a swarm of Jesuits in his train”.  

Britain under the Whigs

So what of the Georgian/Whig period as a whole (including the reign of George II)? Hogarth’s cartoons are famously stark and graphic. But Hogarth was a propagandist. The image left us is one of social deprivation, poverty and cruelty dominating history’s treatment of this period. But given everything taking place across a variety of fronts, in the country as a whole not just in London, it’s to say the least, a partial picture.

By the 1720s Britain was one of the most prosperous countries in the world. This was based on the diplomatic goal of building a worldwide trading network for its merchants, manufacturers and financiers. The policy was Mercantilism - government sharing in and supporting private ventures, and protection for home markets. It was imposed by Britain on its colonies, which supplied raw materials and served as captive markets for British exports and British shipping. The Royal Navy was developed as a large and powerful means to enforce this. 

'Gin Lane', William Hogarth

The British Empire grew strongly during this period. It was given a boost mid-century by the Seven Years War, a complex affair fought mainly against France. French power was brought to an end in India, making way for eventual British control of the subcontinent. And France was defeated in Canada which became a British colony. It’s true that slavery was one of the main trade commodities. A horrific practice (see earlier post, Britain and Slavery), but it, too was abolished in the later Georgian period.  

Peace and Prosperity in a fast growing state?

The country saw 50 years of almost continuous peace and prosperity, the longest in its history. An unassailable Navy protected Britain’s shores and its burgeoning global trade. And while figures such as Walpole used various forms of bribery to exercise control over running the state, it’s not as if this was absent from political management before, or since. Features like pocket boroughs were clearly a stain on the political system and Britain had to wait until well into the 19^th Century before they ended. But in general it was a spell of efficient government administration, at least compared to that of the Restoration.

Register House, Edinburgh, Robert Adam

Social conditions were harsh, but this was perhaps inevitable with a rapidly rising population. From 6.5 million in 1714 (excluding Ireland) at the start of the Georgian/Whig ascendancy the population had risen to over 8 million by 1760, mainly due to a fall in mortality. This occurred despite diseases like smallpox taking a huge toll. Infant mortality rates were astronomic by today’s standards. But then applying any figures to a date 300 years later can yield shocking results. It was also the time of foundling hospitals and large organised charity - a time of huge social change and urbanisation. Public health improved after 1751’s re-imposition of gin taxes. Justice relied on the 1724 ‘bloody code’, with over 200 crimes technically punishable by death. But in practice most defendants were let off or received a lesser sentence. London had eight ‘hanging days’ a year.

Economic, social and cultural progress

A thriving culture went hand in hand with these economic and social changes. In science, William Herschel and his sister Caroline arrived from Brunswick-Lüneberg, making important advances in astronomy and telescopes. Already settled in London, Handel moved from Italian operas to choral anthems and oratorios. Thomas Arne wrote Rule Britannia in 1740. By the 1760s Reynolds and Gainsborough were hitting their heights. But in truth it was less in music or painting than in architecture that the era flexed its artistic muscles. Scots William and Robert Adam left a great legacy. Edinburgh New Town and Georgian Dublin, Bath and other cities bear testament to the progress made. 

Pulteney Bridge, Bath, Robert Adam

So the verdict on early Georgian Britain? You can see it as a glass half full or half empty. It wasn’t all profits and riches - the 1720 South Sea Bubble crisis was a warning. Pell mell urban development with rapid population growth brought unforeseen consequences. But neither was it all Gin Lane and the Rake’s Progress. Best think of it as a curate’s egg. An age of major problems, some shamefully not addressed for a further 100 years. But perhaps the best continuous 50 years in Britain’s history thus far, with a legacy for which we should be grateful today.

1707 England and Scotland Union

The two countries had been united before, of course. The forced territorial entity under the conquering medieval Edward I could perhaps be seen as a sort of union. Relations in the mid 1500s, post Reformation, improved. And on the death of Elizabeth in 1603 Cousin Mary’s son became King James I of England and VI of Scotland - the so called ‘union of the crowns’. The Civil War saw Scottish support for unity with England. But recognition of Charles II as King of Scotland led to conflict. Cromwell invaded Scotland in the 1650s and agreed to union rather than maintain an occupying army. And in 1654 the first Scottish MPs sat in the Westminster Parliament.

So in many ways, despite setbacks along the way, the 1707 Act of Union was really just formalising a closer relationship between the two, something that had been gradually developing for a long time. Yet 2007’s Union tercentenary was barely noticed, let alone celebrated. Nationalists in Scotland (and some in England) tried to play it down, or paint it as an act of betrayal - they were bullied into it, “bought and sold for English gold”. This seems to be one of the main current narratives.

An act of treachery?

The charge from the more romantic opponents of union is that it was an unforgivable act of treachery, as a ‘parcel of rogues’ bribed with £20,000, sold out their country. Not just a crime against the Scottish nation, but against the Scottish people, too. The accompanying riots offered plain evidence of serious opposition to the Union. In short, it was a crooked, corrupt move and the population was dead against it.

So is this true? Well to start with there were actually two Acts of Union - one passed in 1706 by the English Parliament, and one passed in 1707 by the Scottish Parliament. By these two Acts England and Scotland were ‘United into one Kingdom by the Name of Great Britain’. The two had of course largely shared a monarch since 1603.

Notice of troops to quell anti-Union riots 1706

The Union was certainly not popular in Scotland and murderous riots erupted for a time throughout the country. But recent historical research suggests public opinion was more evenly split than was earlier believed. In fact a sizeable minority was neutral. And to be fair, at the start of negotiations, it wasn’t popular in England either.

Religious and European dimension

Protestants in general feared the Catholic Stuarts would re-instate an absolute monarch on the Scottish throne. The late 17^th century saw conflict between Presbyterians and Episcopalians over a major issue for them - control of the Church of Scotland (the Kirk). Presbyterians had been against the proposed Union initially. But they changed their view, deciding not to oppose it once England agreed to protect the independence of the Church of Scotland.

The international dynastic and religious background is key here. The Acts of Union must be seen in a wider European context. An aggressive French Louis XIV showed in the War of the Spanish Succession (1701-1714) why there was such concern. A powerful authoritarian state dominating the continent was a threat to much of Europe. Costly large scale battles at Blenheim and Ramillies, when Union was being discussed, showed both the risks and also more widely what was at stake. Grand Alliance leader Marlborough wanted no backdoor diversions.

Phantom Parliament?

The 17^th century English Revolution’s focus on parliament and a constitutional monarchy had been a continual theme in the minds of many of Scotland’s political figures. During the Scottish Enlightenment Unionists often hoped for the type of civic society growing in the Netherlands, or on the lines of what they saw in London. Such people had for years been persistent in their desire for a treaty with England.

But they realised it would be hard to secure the progress they craved as a small independent state with what politician John Clerk called ‘Scotland’s phantom Parliament’. On top of this, increasing state centralisation in late 17th and 18^th century Europe - in France, Spain, Sweden and Denmark especially - was an established trend.

Allegorical depiction of the Union of the Crowns, Rubens

In 1689 William and Mary had been supportive of Episcopalian type unity, based on the Scottish bishops’ plan for control of the Kirk. But the English Parliament was opposed. And Episcopacy in Scotland was abolished in 1690, alienating a key section of the Scots political class. It was this element that later formed the bedrock of Union opposition.  

Economic imperative

Union had an important economic rationale, too. The 1690s saw great economic hardship in Europe in general and Scotland in particular. Trade north of the border had been badly hurt by England’s Navigation Acts and its wars with Scotland’s chief export market, the Dutch Republic. In 1698 a huge sum was raised in Scotland for the ill-fated Darien scheme (for a colony in the Panama isthmus). This was a monumentally stupid act of self harm. Besides poor leadership, bad planning and a disastrous toll from disease, it didn’t seem to occur to anyone involved that Panama was actually a Spanish territory.

Map of the Darien isthmus 1699 

The Darien fiasco was almost unbelievably costly. It devoured about half Scotland’s available capital, leaving the country virtually bankrupt. Losses were felt throughout the land from the nobility and the middle class down to poor widows. England's Union negotiators offered £400,000 to offset future liability to the English national debt. This sum was used to compensate investors in the Darien catastrophe with nearly 60% of it paid to shareholders and creditors.

Shape of the settlement

Articles of Union 1707

Final drafts of the Union Acts were passed in 1706 in Westminster and in January 1707 in Edinburgh. Of the 25 articles, 15 covered economic issues. Besides the Darien payment, Scotland was clear of the Navigation Acts, so could trade freely with overseas and colonial markets. It created a customs and monetary union. MPs and Scots peers would sit in the English Parliament. The Church of Scotland’s Presbyterian establishment was secured and by re-imposing the Act of Succession the Protestant monarchy was guaranteed. On the legal side the authority of the Court of Sessions and Scots Law would remain.

The Act passed in the Scottish Parliament by 110 votes to 69. James Douglas, Duke of Queensberry, was largely responsible for its successful passage. He was a skilled and shrewd politician who always counted the votes and led the Scottish side in the pre-Union negotiations. He became Secretary of State for Scotland in 1709. Still there’s no doubt the Treasury bribed him with £12,000, while others among those pushing for Union also took sweeteners.

James Douglas, 2nd Duke of Queensberry

But was there any other option? Given all the circumstances, there was surely little realistic choice other than Union. Geography and economics were both unavoidable factors. Historian George N Clark stressed the huge benefits that came to Scotland, though many of them took some time to appear. And Burns’ ‘bought and sold for English gold’ line, supposedly referencing the Union, actually came from a much earlier 17^th century folk song says Christopher Whatley, whose academic research here is exceptional. He soberly concludes “Union with England in 1707 may have made more sense for Scotland than has sometimes been allowed. A majority of Scots parliamentarians supported it …Some of them can properly be considered as patriots. Unionist politicians were not altogether the rogues they have been portrayed as”.

Britain and Slavery

From the end of the 17^th century right up to the 1850s Britain was involved in the international slave trade. And in parts of the British Empire, it was bound up with slavery itself. While there are many episodes in history in which the country can take pride, and managed to do the right thing, this is emphatically not one of them. Not only is it a lasting stain on Britain’s reputation. But 150 years of the country’s involvement in slavery has had long term political, cultural and social ramifications, leaving a legacy with which Britain has yet fully to come to terms.

There are myths attached to the subject, of course. Slave ownership involved not just a few hundred rich merchants based in Liverpool, Glasgow and Bristol, but nearly 50,000 people. And while the slave trade was banned by Parliament in 1807, slavery itself was not outlawed until after 1833. Even then exceptions meant there were British slave owners in the Empire until the 1850s. You could even argue that the later use of indentured labour in South Africa, Guyana (formerly British Guiana) and Fiji was just another form of slavery, though with better conditions.

British slavery background

Of course slavery dates back far earlier, to pre-Roman and then Anglo Saxon times. And indeed, throughout Britain’s history people were carried into slavery from these islands by a succession of raiders like the Vikings and Barbary pirates. The ownership and use of slaves lasted until after the Norman Conquest in Britain itself, but it was revived in the Age of Discovery with slaves taken from Africa to the Americas. The Elizabethan pirate John Hawkins is recognised as the ‘pioneer of the English slave trade’.

John Hawkins

In the late 17^th century James II founded the Royal Africa Company. It transported more slaves from Africa to the Americas than anybody else during the transatlantic slave trade. British involvement would now take off. With the 1713 Treaty of Utrecht British slave traders were awarded under the contract Asiento, permission to trade 144,000 slaves a year to Spanish America. From then on the numbers involved increased vastly. The trade reached its peak year in 1792.

Of the huge number - 12m - of slaves transported from Africa, about 6m were sent to Brazil and other Latin American countries. The numbers for the Caribbean were fewer, at about 5m, of which maybe 2m went to the British Caribbean. Others went to the French, Spanish and Dutch colonies. Britain was clearly the dominant player. It’s estimated that up to 40% of all slaves sent to the Americas were carried in British ships. The conditions were dreadful and the cruelty involved was shocking.

Plan of stowage on British slave ship Brookes

Toward abolition

From the mid-18^th century there was a growing tide of opinion in Britain to end the slave trade. But it took 50 years to achieve this given the high numbers who were benefiting, plus a lack of parliamentary heft. The opposition was led by non-conformists, especially Quakers, who under the Test Act could not become MPs. The Church of England was either compliant or dragged its feet. Probably the leading figure among abolitionists was Thomas Clarkson, a brilliant Cambridge essayist and pamphleteer. His energy (covering 35,000 miles on horseback in the 1780s) in publicising the evil trade and rousing local oppositionist groups was key in raising awareness.

Slaves chained to be moved

Clarkson’s group, the Society for the Abolition of the Slave Trade, ran a national movement to mobilise public opinion. They persuaded the Anglican MP William Wilberforce to introduce his first bill in parliament in 1791. Motions in favour of abolition were introduced almost every year, but Parliament refused to pass them. Then war with France effectively put things on hold. The campaign revived in 1804 and Clarkson returned with renewed energy and enthusiasm. He successfully concentrated on winning over MPs to back the cause and the slave trade was finally abolished by Parliament in 1807.

Thomas Clarkson

Abolition not only affected the trade in British and colonial based vessels, but their supply and fitting by British workers. Sailors could not man the ships nor could these be insured. Britain took on the role of international policeman as naval squadrons were sent to patrol the West African coast and the Caribbean searching for slavers. The Navy bombarded slaving settlements. Britain encouraged other forms of trade such as palm oil. It signed treaties with slave trading countries like Spain, the Netherlands and Portugal leading to the gradual suppression of the trade in slaves with the Americas.

No legislation was ever passed in England to legalise slavery, unlike in Portugal, for instance. And successive court cases declined to recognise it, ordering the freeing of individuals under habeas corpus. By the mid-18^th century there may have been 10,000 freed or runaway African slaves in London. Some of them were prominent in society, like Ignatius Sancho and Olaudah Equiano.

Scale of compensation

Once the trade was abolished it took another 25 years for slavery itself to be made illegal. This happened throughout the British Empire under the 1833 Slavery Abolition Act, when 800,000 Africans, the legal property of Britain’s slave owners, were formally freed. The Act provided for financial compensation of £20m from the British taxpayer to the slave owners. This huge sum is equivalent to nearly £20bn today and probably closer to £100bn in per capita terms given the far higher population. Amounting to an eye watering 40% of total 1834 government spending, the compensation bill was the largest bailout in British history until that of the banks in 2009.

The records of the Slave Compensation Commission, set up to administer and evaluate payment claims, are now being examined by a special University College London team. Their detailed work shows that an astonishing 46,000 British people were involved. In per capita terms the highest numbers were in Scotland. It was mainly ordinary people - tradesmen, country vicars and widows - who were implicated. Just one reason why change took so long. A pretty poor deal for the slaves, too. Says historian David Olusoga, “Not only did the slaves receive nothing …they were compelled to provide 45 hours of unpaid labour each week for their former masters, for a further four years after their supposed liberation. In effect the enslaved paid part of the bill for their own manumission”.

The scheme’s biggest beneficiary was John Gladstone, father of the Victorian prime minister. He was paid £107,000, the modern equivalent of £90m, for the 2508 slaves he owned across nine plantations. The Bishop of Exeter was involved, too. Beneficiaries weren’t just slave owners but those whose business interests derived from slavery, like sugar processing and textiles. There were numerous smaller fry, as well. Many middle class owners had a few slaves but no land in the Caribbean. They rented their ‘property’ out to plantation owners in work gangs. Out of sight out of mind, perhaps, and 3000 miles away. One reason the whole business could so readily escape scrutiny.

Collective discomfort

Many people seem uncomfortable with this aspect of British history even though it has long been taught in schools. It undermines a preferred heroic national narrative. Accordingly they have wanted it swept under the carpet or somehow airbrushed away.  At the 2021 centenary of the Tulsa racial massacre, President Biden put it well. “We can’t just learn what we want to know - and not what we should know”. In Britain there has been absurd and infantile criticism of those wanting to ‘re-write our history’. But isn't that actually what historians do?

William Wilberforce

Of course you can’t judge people of 250 years ago by current attitudes and standards. Few in the early 18^th century would have seen much wrong with lifting millions of people they viewed as racially inferior from Africa to work on plantations in the Americas or the Caribbean. In fact the slaves were sold to the traders by Africans - in the 1750s King Tegbesu of Dahomey alone was earning £250,000 a year from selling people into slavery.

It’s also true that Britain was not the first country involved in the slave trade. Portuguese and Spanish ships were transporting Africans to the Americas from the 15^th century. Arab traders were active in the other direction right into the 20^th century. And it’s also true that after the slave trade in the British Empire was ended, the Royal Navy confronted the practice not only where British ships were involved, but in the case of other countries too. Regular patrols off the Bight of Benin were effective in reducing the trade.

Forgetting slavery

Still, for ages the story of British slavery was buried. 18^th century families who grew rich on the trade or from selling slave-produced sugar concealed an uncomfortable past. Olusoga is clear. “Few acts of collective forgetting have been as thorough and as successful as the erasing of slavery from Britain’s ‘island story’…the abolitionist crusade, first against the slave trade, and then slavery itself, has become a figleaf behind which the larger, longer and darker history of slavery has been concealed”.  

The story can’t simply be killed off, either. The social and economic disadvantages suffered with racial discrimination by descendants of slave populations now living in Britain remain a serious problem. Says academic historian James Walvin, a specialist on this subject and author of The Slave Trade, “It’s an inescapable feature in political argument on both sides of the Atlantic…Slavery still matters. It matters not simply as an important aspect of our historical past, but as a critical ingredient in a complex modern political debate.”

1700-1730 Age of Pirates

Given that piracy in various forms has existed for thousands of years, it may seem strange to focus on just a 30 year period. The Elizabethan navy was bolstered by the use of ‘privateers’, little more than pirates under royal licence. Drake made a career of such activity, with Elizabeth taking a deniable share of the booty. And after the 1660 Restoration British ships predated on Mughal Indian Ocean vessels without many voices raised against it. But with the fire then turned on official ships, 1700-1730 is often seen as the final phase of a ‘golden age of pirates’.

Why should this be and what was actually involved? Where did it happen and who were the pirates? It’s agreed that the phenomenon got a final sugar rush after the War of the Spanish Succession. The 1713-1715 Peace of Utrecht marked a change in the international order - to an era characterised by the maritime, commercial and financial supremacy of Britain. But it also left many Anglo-American sailors unemployed, who then turned en masse to piracy in the Caribbean and elsewhere. Unpaid and mistreated, in the circumstances they saw this as an attractive option .

Piracy background

They were entering an environment where a buccaneering culture had taken root. Jamaica's 17^th century Port Royal had been a local pirate hub where figures like Henry Morgan held sway. Devastated by an earthquake in 1692, this chief market for fenced plunder was gone. But England’s Navigation Acts had weakened some of its colonies so officials often turned a blind eye to pirate gold. From the end of the century colonial trans-Atlantic shipping started to boom, especially with the slave trade. The Caribbean was ideal for piracy - little enforceable law, many uninhabited islands and plenty of valuable shipping trade. 

Port Royal before the earthquake

An army of privateers and buccaneers in the early 18^th century departed Europe and America for the West African coast. Others flocked to the Bahamas and the Tortugas. New Providence Island with its port, Nassau, became their main base. It was aptly named the ‘Republic of Pirates’. For 25 years or so, despite the later recovery of Port Royal, it served as the western hemisphere’s pirate capital.

Buried treasure?

Myths abound, of course. Pirates rarely buried treasure. Most of the loot was promptly divided up among a vessel's crew, who preferred to spend it. Often the ‘treasure’ was perishable goods like calico, cocoa and food which of course would have been ruined if buried. The only recorded case of buried treasure was of William Kidd, when heading to New York to try and clear his name. 

Pirate flag of 'Calico Jack' Rackham

Still, some pirates did indeed fly individual versions of the ‘Jolly Roger’ skull and crossbones when attacking a ship. Most pirate crews weren’t really as  anarchic as portrayed in popular myth, but kept to a code of regulations. It’s hard to find evidence that they made anyone ‘walk the plank’ either.

Infamous names

Capt. Charles Johnson (a presumed pseudonym of a man who may have had pirate connections), published a General History of Pirates in 1724. It sparked public imagination, highlighting the deeds and careers of buccaneers of the time. Most led short lives. Among them were ‘Black Sam’ Bellamy, the chief ‘ideologist’ of piracy, lost at sea in 1717. Londoner Edward Low had a reputation for evil - ‘a man of amazing and grotesque brutality’ said Conan Doyle. Active from 1721-1724, he was notorious for torture, cutting off ears, noses and lips and roasting them in front of his victims before killing them. Disappearing from history and never caught, London’s National Maritime Museum believes he ended his days in Brazil.

Edward Teach, better known as 'Blackbeard'

‘Black Bart’ Roberts was perhaps the most successful pirate ever with over 400 ship captures. And Henry Every was one of the few pirate captains to retire with his loot without being taken or killed in battle. But many of the bigger names were hanged, either in the Caribbean or at London’s Execution Dock, including William Kidd (1701); Stede Bonnet, a rich Barbados plantation owner turned pirate (1718); ‘Calico Jack’ Rackham (1720); Charles Vane (1721) and William Fly (1726). Hundreds of others ended up on the gallows, too. Colony officials became more organised and tolerance for such methods of wealth redistribution steadily declined.

Pirate Mary Read 

Women were poorly represented in this profession. But two female pirates - Mary Read and Anne Bonny - stand out. Reade died in jail. Bonny, Jack Rackham’s former lover, pleaded pregnancy at her trial, and then vanished from history. No record of a childbirth or execution exists.

Blackbeard's shipwreck

In 1996 the Queen Anne’s Revenge wreckage was discovered. This early 18^th century frigate was the flagship of Edward Teach, better known as ‘Blackbeard’. He looked fearsome but his bark was worse than his bite. He supposedly struck terror into those he came across. It seems he wasn’t especially violent, let alone vicious. Killed in action in 1718, he was romanticised after his death and became the fictional model of a pirate. 

Model of Blackbeard's vessel, Queen Anne's Revenge

The wreck of Blackbeard's vessel has been discovered and an underwater excavation carried out. Many of its objects have been preserved and catalogued in a museum at Beaufort, North Carolina. It's probably the only example of a real pirate vessel that survives.

Piracy as cultural fantasy

One of the stereotypical features of pirates in popular culture, the eye patch, actually dates back to the Arab Rahmah ibn Jabir al-Jalahimah who lost his eye in an 18^th century battle. And of course the Barbary pirates operated as slave dealers well into the 19^th century. The parrot on the shoulder, hooked hand and wooden leg appendages are from the RL Stevenson and JM Barrie school of children’s fiction. But earrings may have had validity as a common form of portable wealth and ready means for a pirate's relatives, if any, to pay for his funeral when required.

Children's book commissioned for Key Stage 2 reading

Finally it’s perhaps surprising that in the 1980s and 90s pirates were used in many UK primary schools as role models. As supposedly classless and culturally neutral figures, pirates were deemed to be a handy aid towards inclusion especially in the more diverse classrooms. But this idea of 'jolly japes' was based on myths, not on the cruel truth. The exemplars were actually a crowd of despicable robbers and vicious murderers. A strange example of a myth built upon a myth?