Pertsona-izenordeak

Although the Duchess exerted considerable power over the Blenheim project whilst Marlborough was absent, she certainly did not wish to exclude him. It was a collaborative venture and as such many decisions were made via the hundreds of letters that passed between them. In June 1709, the Duke informed his wife that ‘The two suites of hangings which were made in Bruxelles by Vanbrouke’s measures cost me above eight hundred pounds, so that if possible thay should serve for the roomes that they were intended for, being sure in England there can be none had so good and fine’.⁴³⁰ The tapestry referred to is the

426 BL, Blenheim Papers, Add. MS 61353, f. 13, Samuel Travers to Marlborough, 4 June 1706.

427 Sidney Godolphin to Lord Marlborough, St James’s, 19 April 1706, referring to Sir Christopher Wren’s model of the ‘parade at Woodstock’ in Snyder (ed.), MGC, vol. 1, pp. 522-23.

428 The ‘wals’ refers to the foundations of the bridge; Marlborough to the Duchess, Meldert, 16/27 July 1707, in Snyder (ed.), MGC, vol. 2, p. 851.

429 Marlborough to the Duchess, Meldert, 17/28 July 1707, in Snyder (ed.), MGC, vol. 2, p. 853.

430 Marlborough to the Duchess, Abby of Looz, 13/24 June 1709, in Snyder (ed.), MGC, vol. 3, p. 1284.

120

panelled set depicting the Story of Alexander which was eventually hung in the Marlboroughs’ private apartments.

A further example of the collaborative approach to Blenheim is evidenced by the fact that Vanbrugh sent architectural drawings and details to the Duchess to consider, before being sent on to the Duke:

Your Grace will receive by my Lord Herveys Servant to morrow the Designe you desir’d to See of the Manner intended for furnishing the Salon, The Pannells at the bottom are to be of Wainscote, and run even without any breaks, so that there will be room for about Twenty Chairs besides Tables The Pillasters and Don Moldings are to be of Marble, with the Moldings About the Niches where the Figures Stand. The Figures intended for these Niches are now in the Palace of a Gentleman in Italy […] All above the Pillasters is to be Wainscote enrich’d. ⁴³¹

This excerpt demonstrates that the Duchess was at the centre of the decision-making process, on a par with her husband. Her previous experience of building schemes had furnished her with the necessary knowledge to engage with and influence the design of the Saloon. Significantly, she was Vanbrugh’s first point of call in this instance, and it can be reasonably inferred that this was the case with many of the decisions that had to be made during the building process.

Nonetheless, on occasion the Duchess overruled both Vanbrugh’s and her husband’s wishes, especially when she considered a particular scheme to be full of folly. This was evident in 1709 when she objected to Vanbrugh’s desire to have two greenhouses. Vanbrugh justified the need for two to balance the south elevation, stating that the one attached to the Kitchen Court was simply ‘to preserve the trees in Winter’, whereas the one attached to the Stable Court was to be suitable ‘for a distinct retired room of Pleasure, furnished with only some of the best Greens, mixed with pictures, Busts, Statues, Books’.⁴³²

As was the Duchess’s nature, she considered the second greenhouse to be an unwarranted waste of space, materials and money. Consequently, she halted all works upon it, overriding the Duke’s desire to proceed:

As to what concerns Woodstock, I have already assured you of my aproving intierly of what you have ordered; but as to the design for the orange houses, that must in its due time go on, notwithstanding it hinders the veu from the gallerie.⁴³³

The Duchess, nonetheless, remained steadfast, later stating that ‘The second green house, or a detached gallery I thank God I prevented being built; nothing, I think can be more mad than the proposal, nor a falser description of the prospect’.⁴³⁴ Her boldness in supplanting both Vanbrugh’s and her husband’s wishes with her own is testament to the confidence that the Duchess had in her own architectural preferences.

431 BL, Blenheim Papers, Add. MS 61353, ff. 68-9, Vanbrugh to the Duchess, London, 14 July 1709.

432 Vanbrugh’s memorandum to the Duchess, 8 July 1709, in Bonamy Dobrée and Geoffrey Webb (eds), The Complete Works of Sir John Vanbrugh, vol. 4 (London: Nonsuch Press, 1927-28), p. 33.

433 Marlborough to the Duchess, 14/25 July 1709, in Snyder (ed.), MGC, vol. 3, p. 1311.

434 Vanbrugh to Lord Ryalton?, Blenheim, 18 July 1709, endorsed by the Duchess, in Dobrée and Webb (eds), Complete Works, vol. 4, p. 36.

121

This is also demonstrative of the power and control that military wives could wield over building schemes in their husbands’ absence. They were provided with an opportunity to directly and significantly alter building schemes and, in this case, the Duchess did so with determination. This is further corroborated by the fact that in 1710, following the dismissal of Godolphin from his office as Lord Treasurer, the Duchess took the drastic step of halting all works at Blenheim until she knew that payments from the Treasury would continue under the new Tory Lord Treasurer, Robert Harley. Of course, this distressed Vanbrugh greatly and he immediately complained of the situation to the Duke:

[T]his morning Joynes and Bobart told me, they had rec’d a Letter from the Dutchess of Marlborough to put a stop at once to all sorts of Work till your Grace came over, not suffering one Man to be employ’d a day longer. ⁴³⁵

The fact that the Duchess took this step without the knowledge or consent of her husband again illustrates the extent to which she had control of the project, and the extent to which her husband trusted in her judgement.

Fig. 28 Blenheim House, unknown artist, c. 1750s.

435 Vanbrugh to Marlborough, Oxford, 3 October 1710, in Dobrée and Webb (eds), Complete Works, vol. 4, p. 48.

122