Duchess: A Novel of Sarah Churchill
Q & A with author Susan Holloway Scott
How did you become interested in Sarah Churchill's life?My first introduction to Sarah Churchill and her husband John was through the BBC series, "The First Churchills", which launched Masterpiece Theatre in this country in 1971. I was in high school then, and cared far more for the romantic intrigues of Sarah and John than the politics and history that determined their lives. Later I read the definitive biography on which the series was based, Marlborough: His Life and Times , by Sarah and John's descendent Sir Winston Churchill. While Sir Winston's books were primarily written as John's biography, Sarah seemed always ready to steal the limelight whenever she could, and I've remained interested in her ever since then. When I finally decided to write a fictionalized historical biography, she was the obvious choice.
How long did it take you to do your research and where did you conduct most of your research?Since I've been a self-proclaimed "history nerd" for as long as I can remember, I've probably been unconsciously researching the background of Duchess and life in 17th-century England for a good twenty years. When it came to the specifics of Sarah's life, however, there's almost too much information. I relied on the resources of several university libraries, including those of the University of Pennsylvania, the College of William and Mary, and the Pennsylvania State University at College Park, as well as the holdings of the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation.
Many of Sarah's letters survive, and have been reprinted, as have John's. She was the most famous non-royal woman of her time, married to the most illustrious military man in Europe, and their lives were thoroughly documented by the contemporary press. Sarah was the first woman to understand the power of the media, cultivating popular journalists to relay her viewpoints to the world. And in her old age, Sarah commissioned a ghost-written autobiography, a juicy tell-all of her life at court that became the prototype of celebrity biographies. (Not surprisingly, it was a huge bestseller, and remained in print for over a hundred years after her death.) In all these sources, a vivid portrait of a complex, passionate woman emerges loud and clear through the centuries. She's a story-teller's dream.
Was Sarah a feminist?Sarah was hardly an average 17th-century lady. She believed that women were the equal in men in intellect, and often in ability, and often lamented that she had not been born a man herself so that she could have used her natural gift for politics as a minister or a member in Parliament. She never masked her intellect or ambition behind a lady-like mask; she was famous (or infamous) for speaking her mind in a time when outspoken women could still be punished in the stocks or dunking-stool. Though she was considered a great beauty, she seldom relied on her appearance to achieve her goals.
Her various positions at court throughout her lifetime were a full-time career that took her away from home for long periods of time. Her children were raised by others; her homes were run by housekeepers. She considered her marriage to John as partnership, and together they worked hard to support the careers of the other. When she showed more aptitude for finance, John gladly turned over the family finances and investments to her care, and by the time of her death, she was the wealthiest woman in England next to the queen.
Yet in other ways she was the antithesis of a feminist. She believed that the father was the master of the family as a whole, and chastised her daughters for not deferring sufficiently to their husbands. She and John married for love, but she saw nothing wrong with arranging advantageous marriages for her daughters. While she believed women were entitled to political views, she would have been horrified to see them serving in her husband's regiments.
Why should readers today be interested in Sarah's life, aside from the entertainment value?While more than three hundred years separate Sarah Churchill from the modern world, she faced many of the same challenges as women today. She balanced her career with her husband and family. She was a “self-made” woman, rising from near-poverty to great power and wealth. For forty years, she managed a complicated relationship with Anne Stuart, the lonely princess who would become queen, and maintain one of the most complex friendships in history between two women before Sarah's own personality finally forced it to implode.
Equally fascinating is Sarah's marriage to John Churchill. From the time she was fifteen, he remained the only man and the one love in her long life, and their ability to balance their careers and support one another's goals is as unusual now as it was then. Both were beautiful, charming, and ambitious, famously loyal to one another and to no one else, cheered in the London streets yet vilified as traitors to the Crown they served: is there any doubt that John and Sarah were among the world's first true “power couples”?
How much did Sarah have in common with her famous descendent, Diana, Princess of Wales?Seven generations separate Sarah (1660-1744) from Diana (1961-1997); Sarah's second daughter Anne married Charles Spencer, third Earl of Sunderland, and thus united the Churchills with the Spencers.
Both Sarah and Diana were beautiful and blond, and the daughters of troubled families. Both were thrust onto the very public stage of the English royal court as teenagers, married young to famous men, and fought ferociously for the rights of their sons. Both were favorites of the public, with bouquets tossed at their feet. Both were alternately idolized and skewered by the press, and both learned by necessity how to turn that same press to their favor.
But fate ends the similarities there. Sarah's marriage was long and famously happy, while Diana's ended in divorce. Sarah's life was long and rich, well into eighties, while Diana died tragically young. Sarah loved power and politics, while Diana avoided both, perfering the gentler stage of her many charities. Diana's two sons remain as her legacy, heirs to the English throne, while Sarah's two boys failed to live to adulthood, leaving the titles, lands, and wealth that Sarah had worked so hard to amass for them descend to her daughter instead.
As we approach the twentieth aniversary of Diana's death, I like to think there have been a mutual respect and kinship between Sarah and Diana that would have gone far beyond their shared bloodlines.
