Catherine Layton has an intriguing argument, but the more I have thought about it, the more problems arise. Here are a few:
1. Since the Lord Chamberlain could and did shut down a play anytime on grounds of supposed immorality, attacks on religion, or dangers to society, I find it hard to believe that Victoria would herself would have the need to take any actions.
2. I find it equally impossible that Victoria would bribe anyone as lowly as a theater manager by inviting them to court.
3. Frank Haris has such a reputation as a liar that anything he says has to be taken with a grain of salt.
4. The resolution of the Sutherland case might have disappointed those wanting more scandal, but the scandal would not have faded so quickly as to have had an effect on a play’s production.
5. The aftermath: the scandal itself could hardly have prevented the Duchess’s daughter from obtaining a marriage to someone in the nobility. Very wealthy American girls famously came to the UK to marry members of the nobility. If the mother had that enormous fortune, her daughter was a very, very eligible woman. Something else must have happened.
6. If another producer put on Wilde’s play and made money without any consequence, I find it hard to believe the first two would have refused it.
Last modified 30 April 2019