The Scandalous Lady W

Lady Seymour Worsley

In this day and age it is easy to take the freedoms we have for granted. Women have the right to vote, we can own property and it is no longer deemed shameful to remain unmarried and sexually active simultaneously (to most people). It's a far cry from the Georgian era when a woman was regarded as a man's property, without rights of their own. If a husband had an affair it was natural, if a woman had one she was shunned by society, not allowed to petition her case or even demand a divorce. That was the husband's privilege.

It's a frightening notion for any modern woman, but to a woman of the 18th century it was their lot in life. And it is a major aspect in the biography Lady Worsley's Whim by Hallie Rubenhold - later reissued as The Scandalous Lady W - who explores the complex and scandalous union of Sir Richard Worsley and his wife Seymour, who ran off with her husband's close friend Captain George Bissett. It resulted in Worsley suing Bissett for damages worth up to £20, 000 in compensation. A shocking sum even at that time.

Sir Richard Worsley, 7th Baronet

The aim of this was to humiliate and bankrupt Bissett while restoring Sir Worsley's honour as a victim. A huge miscalculation as Worsley didn't factor in his wife's hatred towards him, and considering their extracurricular activities it's easy to see why. It is not certain that Lady Worsley made the conscious decision to defend her lover by having her own character degraded but the defense was determined to prove to the whole country that Lady Worsley was not worth £20, 000. As a result the trial commenced with the Defense bringing to light the shocking truth: that Lady Seymour Worsley 'had been seriously compromised long before the captain made off with the spoiled goods'.

Of course this was a matter of Worsley's word against the gentlemen who came forward from Lord Deerhurst to her personal physician Dr William Osborn; for the alleged lovers the questioning ran along the lines of 'When did your first acquaintance commence with Lady Worsley?' and 'Did you frequently visit at Sir Richard's house?' As for the doctor, Osborn was not comfortable betraying his patient's confidence. 'My business was to cure her' was Osborn's answer, verifying he did not know how the Lady became ill but that he had never been called in regards to Sir Worsley's health at any given time. Again, not necessarily proving adultery or foul play in an explicit capacity.

Worsley's complicity within his wife's affairs was not proven until the statement of a bathing woman was read out in court, showing the extent of Worsley's duplicity. Rubenhold explains:

'Since birth [the priviledged classes] had been trained to be blind and dependent. When surveying the room they saw only the bodies of those who mattered. In most cases this excluded virtually everyone of a lesser social standing. As a result the privileged classes frequently forgot themselves in front of a theatre of labourers and staff, whose presence they failed to acknowledge'.

After the verdict Sir Richard Worsley
became the subject of ridicule.

Such was the case with Mary Marriot who held vital information that would make or break the case. Both sides sent their representatives down to interview the woman in question, an unimportant worker in the eyes of the privileged. But on that day she gave the damning evidence as follows:

'Lady Worsley used to come to the cold bath near Maidstone to bathe, and that she [Marriott] used to attend her; that Sir Richard and Mr Bissett were generally with her; and that the last time she came, which was about noon, in September last... Sir Richard tapped at the door, and said 'Seymour! Seymour! Bissett is going to get up to look at you'; and looking around she saw his face at the window... and that she did not see the plaintiff on the outside but believes he must help the defendant up'.

Such a declaration decided the case. The jury retired to consider their verdict. Upon their return they decreed that Sir Worsley was indeed entitled to compensation towards the dishonour he recieved from the plaintiff, and awarded him what they deemed appropiate: the total sum of one shilling.

BBC adaptation of Rubenhold's biography

It was a scandalous and entertaining case that was turned into a BBC film last year starring Natalie Dormer (The Tudors) which blended fact with fiction well enough, turning Lady Worsley into a heroine for the modern woman, blending the scandalous sexual proclivities of the Worsleys with the integrity of the courtroom. And Dormer proving her acting chops in her first leading performance after supporting on The Tudors, Game of Thrones and Casanova. Of course liberties were taken, with it being Seymour's idea to defame her name and appearing in the courtroom as her infidelities are exposed

As Rubenhold wrote, 'A married lady's character was a fragile thing'. Even after it was proven that her honour was depleted by her husband, Lady Worsley was still shunned by the respectable side of society while Sir Richard, due to his humiliation, fled to Europe, travelling through Greece and collecting various artifacts. But Seymour was left behind to deal with the judgements of her fellow socialites, running up large bills in her husband's name before eventually being exiled to France by Worsley himself who refused to grant her a divorce which led to the eventual split from George Bissett before her four year exile.

When Sir Richard died in 1805 Seymour married her lover Jean Louis Hummel, who was twenty one years her junior, who took his wife's name. She also regained the fortune that had been originally bequeathed to her over thirty years before. In the end Seymour enjoyed a quiet and happy life in her final years with her young husband.