court

court. The institution known as the court has changed its meaning over the centuries. In early medieval times, the court, or household, was the centre of government. The chamberlain and butler performed their personal services for the king but also acted as advisers in broader questions. The monarch, with counsellors and great officers in attendance, would do business, receive petitions, and dispense justice. The king's journeys around the shires enabled some of his subjects to visit him locally, but must have inhibited the social side of court life, since it would not have been easy to accommodate large numbers of unexpected guests: Henry II's movements were notoriously unpredictable. As public business increased, various functions were delegated: much administration was left to the council, and justice to the specialized law courts. But as long as political power remained with the monarch, the division between public and private, government and ceremony, could never be absolute. It has been suggested that, as a result of the ‘Tudor revolution in government’, the court from the 1530s took on a purely ceremonial role. That is premature. All through the Tudor and early Stuart period, careers could be made or broken at court—Wolsey, Leicester, Essex, Rochester, Buckingham. The more routine aspects of government may have been hived off, but the crucial decisions still rested with the monarch and his immediate advisers. But after the Glorious Revolution, as power drained away to Parliament and the cabinet, the importance of the court began to diminish. Charles II's court had been lively, with obliging ladies founding aristocratic families, but money had started to run out. Monarchs also shared with many noblemen the preference for a less public and more domestic home life. By George II's reign, court life was routine and placid, save for a few grand occasions. To some extent this was fortuitous. William III was taciturn, Anne shy, George I inhibited by language difficulties; George II's temper made his receptions distinctly unpredictable, and George III's tastes ran to domestic bliss. Nor could the court any longer afford the patronage that had made Charles I a connoisseur of the arts. Monarchs still wielded considerable influence but in direct consultation with ministers in private or in correspondence rather than through the court. The Edwardian court in the 1900s saw a brief social revival, partly because of the novelty of a visible monarch after Victoria's protracted seclusion, partly because Edward VII enjoyed company. But it was an Indian summer and went down in the trenches of 1917. After the Great War, society did not really recover. There were still people to whom it mattered to be received at court. But to almost all subjects in the late 20th cent. the court meant nothing, politically or socially. Though The Times continued dutifully to print a court circular, it is doubtful whether it was as much read as the sports page.

J. A. Cannon