Tete a tete in the garden

Prince Albert Victor Christian Edward aged eighteen or so. Notice the precise developing shape of his lovely face, the arch of his eyebrows and the shape of the nose in particular.

Below,  'Tete a tete in the garden' (a spring garden) by James McNeill Whistler, c1881/2 :-)

An etching apparently of Prince Eddy, seen behind the wine on the right of the painting, with a strap over his left shoulder, evidently with Marie Jeanette, 'La Belle du Jour'. The boy and girl look barely eighteen years old. Perhaps about eighteen. This seems to be a litho of Prince Eddy and Marie in their introduction days as adults after having met in childhood? 

Zoom in:

La Belle du Jour is seen below -with the little Prince 'Jo' apparently, potentially the same girl. Note the arch of the eyebrows and shape of the nose in the boy there. I would imagine this is a garden in Chelsea in the early 1880s, Whistler's, at the back of his studio there, or the back garden of Oscar Wilde's home.

Prince Eddy and his 'Belle du Jour' Marie in a Chelsea garden in 1881/2 fits perfectly with the testimonies that emerged in the 1970's, to the effect that in the early 1880s the Prince of wales ( later Edward VII)  and his wife Princess Alexandra gave permission for Prince Eddy to go to town ( Chelsea and the West End)  for experience in art and socialising ( and all that went  with that.) Prince Eddy does look timid in the Whistler litho above, and a bit as if he has never seen himself start! :-) A meeting between the son of Bertie (later Edward VII) and the pretty Stuart girl at this stage, the early 1880s. Edward VII was constantly showing other Royal youths (such as Gustav of Sweden) photo cards of his mistresses and encouraging them to behave in a similar manner, putting about the idea that any self respecting prince who did not have an adoring harem to show about the place was not up to much. 

Above, Prince Eddy in a Hanoverian Uniform. Left, Prince Eddy in his White Stuart rose with his father Bertie, then the Prince of Wales. ( Later Edward VII). Bertie, the Prince of Wales incumbent in the early 1880s, had long adored pretty Irish mistresses, and will not have objected to encouraging his son in behaviours similar to his own. On the contrary, he promoted his influence. Often as generous to others as he was with himself, he did not concern himself with the consequences of the encouragements he was giving Prince Eddy and other young gentry. As for political consequences, he appears to have had a deal of naivety, natural authority and charisma. He frequently, at times naively, trusted in his perceived ability to influence all manner of personalities in almost any circumstance. He does not seem to have given much for a passe, restricted and repressed society wherein women had been deemed wise to shy away from artistic exigences and inquisitive early camera lenses. 

 For people who've been writing emails suggesting ( two people have been insisting) that 'Jo' was Bertie's , ( Bertie also signed 'ALBERT EDWARD') you can see  that he was not; but as to whether Bertie had everything to do with how it all came about, well.  If 'Jo' had been Bertie's, even as a Stuart boy of a Stuart mother with serious Fenian connections, the situation would not have presented as an immediate political problem to the powers that were (though it would have been a vintage threat to their position). 

As Prince Eddy's son, the lost Prince 'Jo' was instantly in line for the Empire throne in conjunction with an automatic, complete overhaul of the Hanoverian interpretation of the Act of Succession and all the powers that were. (A 'proper payout of the dues of Culloden Moor!'). 

Below, Manet's painting 'Woman in a negligee, 1882'. You can compare this painting with the newspaper artist's picture of Marie Jeanette in 1888 'A lost woman in Millers' Court' and Walter Sickert's 'The Iron Bedstead' painting ( 'Found in London Lamplight')  This may be Manet's own rendition of the 1881-2 ' Belle du Jour' ( Marie Jeanette Stuart/'Marie Jeanette Kelly'.) Manet seems to have focused specifically on the full eyelids and the lengthy eyelashes in the fact that you can at times see in aristocratic Stuart descendants.There are slight creases under the eyes as with the artist's rendition of 'Mary Kelly, a lost woman in Miller's Court'. This lady is unnamed, and the breast are not painted in, only overtly suggested.

Below, Jimmy Whistler's rendition of 'Le Belle du Jour', ( one 'Marie Jeanette' apparently).

A good article here, 'Manet and Whistler against the world', outlining some of the artistic premises through which the two artists developed their close association.

One thing all these items of artistic and historic record relating to this era have poignantly in common, whether they be photo cards of mistresses or touching artist renditions of  individuals in the setting of their private and personal lives, is that they were all beautifully recorded without anyone expressing indignance or moralistic prurience and with the subjects' full permission. This 'lost epoque' was an artists' epoque, one of subtelty, seduction and adventure. Poise and beauty were sought after. 

I think the loveliest picture of  La Belle 'Marie Jeanette' ( "the woman Kelly") is the one below, Walter Sickert's picture of her topless/ nude and pregnant with the little boy and his horse-whip superimposed on her tummy, and the nun meandering beside her knees. They have all captured Irish / Jacobite beauty, of course.

--

Lost Prince, another sketch surfaces, this time through Christies

Sketch of 'the lost prince', by Walter Sickert, inscribed 'IIII Jo' , ( 4 Jo). Apparently Prince Eddy's son, born in the 1880s. From Walter Sickert's secret and personal sketch collection, never before shown to the public until I printed the photos of him ( of said sketches) on my 2007 research blog. 

 

Below, this recently passed through Christies, ' Walter Sickert, sketch for Soldiers of King Albert the Ready'. It would seem that this also is 'Jo', whose death in WWI is described by a witness to Walter Sickert's life, Marjorie Lilly.

Perhaps regular military wear around Jo's waist in the newly surfaced sketch, or  a sketch book there, girded to his waist. Its resemblance to a sketch book stands out from the other military wear in this way. In the top figure there, a soldier lain a young child asleep, rather than a young man dead, isn't he, with his fulsome arm up by the side of his head. 

One of these soldiers might be a soldier who died and then was buried in Jo's place, or Walter Sickert might be referencing a brother to Jo. 

Marjorie Lilly, a witness to Walter Sickert's life upon whom experts rely, appears to have met the boy 'Jo' when he was in his early twenties, in 1914. She wrote the following story in her book 'Walter Sickert, the Painter and his Circle' about an experience in 1914:

...' A Special Protege of Sickert's was a boy called Joe; I never knew his surname or whether he possessed any talent for painting. An ex-pupil from the Westminster, he was now a soldier, waiting to be sent to France. There was something very moving about Joe with his round, candid face, his shock of fair hair, and his shy friendly smile; he had such a great capacity for happiness. Whenever he could get leave he would be present on Wednesday's with his girl; sitting side by side, they seldom spoke, and he had no eyes for anyone but the Master. He worshiped Sickert....It was enough for him just to be there, listening and watching, in an ecstasy of wonder. ...

..But Joe was sent to France and in a few weeks he was lying dead with a bullet through his brain.

Christine wrote to his girl and asked her to come and see us on Wednesdays, just as before. The girl answered by thanking Christine for the invitation but she was sure we'd understand, she didn't want to see Fitzroy Street or any of us, ever again.

After Sickert heard of the death of Joe he shut himself up for three days and would not open his door. When he emerged, he never spoke of Joe and no one dared to mention his name.'

Quotation taken from 'Sickert, The Painter and his Circle', Marjorie Lilly, Elek London, 1971.

Marjorie Lilly's book began to be distributed in wide circulation in 1971. Joseph Gorman, later, in 1972, 'Joseph Sickert' publicly emerged, correctly claiming that he was Walter Sickert's grandson via Walter's love affair with Annie Crook and their daughter Alice Margaret who was born to the couple in 1885. In 1969 Joseph Sickert had already visited the Lessores, and told them he thought he was Walter Sickert's grandson. In 1974 Joseph Sickert received a 'visit' from certain socialites who told him he was in fact the grandson of Prince Eddy, which ostensibly he is not, and that Alice Margaret was the daughter of Prince Eddy and the child at the centre of the Whitechapel murders, which ostensibly she was not. Coincidence? Or were people covering up the lost prince Jo's existence?

Oh...... look, in the Walter Sickert sketch above, which purportedly contains two practise runs of  dying 'Jo' for the painting, the sketch drawn first, at the base of the sketch paper, has no bullet at the side of the head, but the one at the top, in which you can see the tenderness of the sketch, (the boy's lain down like a sleeping child) you can see a mark resembling a bullet wound at the side of his brain.  In the painting rendition you can see a bullet wound on the right side of the soldier's head, and you can see the pool of blood above his forehead there.

Wendy Baron has gone into the painting a little, here. She concludes that Walter Sickert must have called the Belgian King Albert 'the ready', and remarks that Walter's acquaintance Robert Emmons (who decided that Walter got the idea for the painting from a newspaper) indicated that the painting perhaps extols Belgian heroism in respect of a particular incidence against German invaders of Liege.  The Emmons/Baron statement could have been the official version of the painting at the time, in 1914. ( Of course, Walter Sickert, while WWI was going on, being a 'kind of novelist painter', according to his Camden Town and NEAC acquaintance, was so inspired by the little Belgian town of Liege, and felt such a peculiar attachment to it, having never been there in all his life, he couldn't wait to get paint to canvas!..

You can see that the background on the right side of the painting is  a battlefield, while the background on the left  denotes another scenario, perhaps some sort of prison, the Paris Temple Prison where Louis XVII was held in the 1790s, or a workhouse in London. There are bars on the window shown, and there's a barrel beneath said window. There are cobble stones, possibly Fitzrovia cobblestones on the ground. They look very much like the Charlotte Street paving stones that you can still see today.
Or could the scenario to the left of the painting represent wars that Ireland or Scotland had been involved in of times past? Or French revolutionary wars?

Why has Walter painted 'Jo 'with a sketch book girded on as he lies dying, or 'not dying'....? Perhaps an artist's reference to Jo's own sketches, or to his father Prince Eddy's sketches. Did 'Jo' take his sketches with him to war, or is it figurative, to suggest he was an artist at heart, even while dying? Or while 'not dying'?

 The Minstrel Boy to the war is gone

In the ranks of death you will find him.

His father's sword he hath girded on,

And his wild harp slung behind him.

 ......( the song repeated the 'will ye neer come back again' theme:...)

 The Minstrel Boy will return we pray

When we hear the news we all will cheer it,

The minstrel boy will return one day,

Torn perhaps in body, not in spirit.

Then may he play on his harp in peace,

In a world such as Heaven intended,

For all the bitterness of man must cease,

And ev'ry battle must be ended.


* An interesting video below showing film reconstructs of wars that Ireland has been involved in over the ages. 'The Minstrel Boy'.