MovieChat Forums > Belle (2014) Discussion > Learn the true story. Pls don't let the ...

Learn the true story. Pls don't let the film bury the real Dido Belle


Enjoy the film, inspired by a true story, but pls keep the memory of the actual Dido Belle alive.

Dido was born in 1761 in the West Indies (not in the UK) to Maria Belle, a slave. Dido's father, Captain John Lindsay, took her with him when he returned to England in 1765 abandoning her mother. She never carried her father's name, but was baptised "Dido Elizabeth Bell" in 1766 at St George's Church, Bloomsbury.

(It should be noted that attitudes towards "natural" children were very different in America and the UK. In America children inherited their mother's status, in the UK, their fathers'. Fathers of illegitimate children in America thought nothing of fathering slave children and even selling them. Englishmen, thought of these children as extensions of themselves and ego would not permit them to leave them behind to uncertain fates. Many souvenir children came home to England, almost invariably without their mothers, from the far reaches of empire. Placements were found for them and they were educated and supported. However, the fact of their illegitimacy meant they could never actually come anywhere near matching their fathers' status in society.)

It is comically incorrect in the film when Elizabeth states that Dido's (fictional) 2,000 pounds per year means she could marry into any of the best families. Dido's illegitimacy would have absolutely precluded that.

Both Dido and her cousin Elizabeth came to live with the Murrays at Kenwood House in North London at about the same time. Dido in 1765 & Elizabeth in 1766 after her Polish mother died. Both were given allowances while living with their great aunt and uncle. Dido got 30 pounds sterling per year and Elizabeth received 100 pounds. Elizabeth, no pauper, was an heiress via her mother and also later inherited from her father and uncle.

There is no evidence that Dido was excluded from the dining room (except for the one time depicted in the film) whether visitors were present or not. The well-educated Dido worked closely with her uncle on all the important matters he dealt with. This was highly unusual because it was the custom for highly-trained male professionals to be assistants to important gentlemen.

It's unfortunate that two important cases that William Murray, Lord Mansfield, sat in judgement on, the Zong and Somersett affairs, were so badly combined in the film. They are worth reading about.

Elizabeth married well in 1785 at age 25 and had three children, living on until 1825, age 65.

Dido's father died in 1788, leaving a paltry 1000 pounds to be split between his 2 or 3 "natural" children. He had been knighted & also made an Admiral. (There is no evidence that he had any relationship with Dido after he left her with the Murrays).

The young women's great uncle, William Murray died in 1793. He left Elizabeth 10,000 pounds. Dido got a lump sum of 500 pounds and 100 pounds per year for life.

After 28 years at Kenwood House, 32-year-old Dido left to marry Frenchman John Daviniers, a gentleman's steward in London (the Daviniers character in the film was a total fiction). They were married in 1793 at St George's Bloomsbury, the delightful church where she'd been christened. Her three sons were also christened there, the twins, Charles & John in 1795 and William in 1802.

Dido was just 43 when she died in 1804. Daviniers remarried and had two more children with his second wife.The graveyard where Dido was buried was redeveloped in the 1970s, all remains cremated and the ashes interred at an unknown location.

Dido's last known descendant died childless in South Africa in 1975.

There are wiki pages on Dido Belle, Admiral John Lindsay, William Murray, Elizabeth Murray, Kenwood House, St George's Bloomsbury, the Zong Massacre, Somerset v. Stewart, Hampstead Heath, etc.

The English Heritage page for Kenwood House is
http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/daysout/properties/kenwood/

The Guardian's report on the restoration of Kenwood:
http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2013/dec/13/kenwood-house-restoration-greatest-art-collection

Tragically, the film was not made at the real Kenwood House as it was under renovation 2012-2013. This is a real loss to the film as Kenwood is such a particular place. The house is open again now and I highly recommend a visit. Kenwood belongs to the public and is open almost every day of the year. There is something absolutely magically evocative about walking through the rooms and around the grounds. If you're looking for the real Dido, you'll find echos of her here.

Kenwood House has played a large part in my life. One of my children, William Edward, is named for it. William for Dido's great uncle, who built Kenwood, and Edward for Edward Guinness, the Earl of Iveagh, who saved Kenwood (in the nick of time!) for the nation. It's a riveting story.

reply

Dido was born in 1761 in the West Indies (not in the UK)


No, she didn't. She was born in England.

Sources:
"I knew her history before, but My Lord mentioned it again. Sir John Lindsay having taken her mother prisoner in a Spanish vessel, brought her to England where she was delivered of this girl, of which she was then with child, and which was taken care of by Lord M., and has been educated by his family. He calls her Dido, which I suppose is all the name she has. He knows he has been reproached for showing fondness for her —I dare say not criminal." - an excerpt from a diary entry in 1779 from the diary of Thomas Hutchinson (1711—80).

Belle, Dido Elizabeth (1761-1804) - Oxford Dictionary of National Biography

Dido Elizabeth Belle: A Black Girl at Kenwood. An Account of a Protégé of the 1st Lord Mansfield - Gene Adams (Camden History Review, 12, 1984)

It is comically incorrect in the film when Elizabeth states that Dido's (fictional) 2,000 pounds per year means she could marry into any of the best families. Dido's illegitimacy would have absolutely precluded that.


Not true. There were plenty of families who turned a blind eye when an illegitimate daughter was a heiress or biologically related to a significant aristocrat or Royal.

reply

No, she didn't. She was born in England.
Sources: .........


We can't be sure. We know little for sure about Dido Belle. Hutchinson's notes couldn't be taken as a well-grounded source. Actually, what he knew (being it seems a very racial-prejudiced guest from America) was grounded only on Lord Mansfield's words about Belle. And His Lordship might well be interested in spreading that kind of opinion - that Belle was born in England (not in West Indies). Which was very important for securing her freedom I can guess - or just to make it easier for the man to tolerate Belle's presence.

Wiki very wisely isn't explicit in this, in fact we know only that -

Lindsay returned to England after the war in 1765, likely bringing at that time his young, mixed-race biological daughter to London.

No evidence that she was born in the UK.
She was baptised only in 1766, when her father was away. So, it was Lord M. who took care about her poor soul.

plenty of families who turned a blind eye when an illegitimate daughter was an heiress or biologically related to a significant aristocrat or Royal


But Belle wasn't such even in the film (with 2000 pounds), not to mention in real life.

reply

yes, but Belle was nothing such kind even in the film (with 2000 pounds), not to mention in real life.


Miss Rhoda Swartz (orphaned mixed-race Jewish-Jamaican heiress) in William Thackeray's Vanity Fair is an “object of vast respect” to the Osborne family because of her inheritance. There's an implication that she's also illegitimate. As you probably know, Thackeray based his characters on real-life people. So it stands to reason that Miss Swartz was based on a real-life heiress. There are documented records of black heiresses, anyway. Usually found in Bath, Brighton and of course, London during the late Georgian and Victorian eras.

In any case, the film Belle is fictional. Stories by Austen, the Brontes and the like aren't exactly rooted in reality, are they? Austen's stories, for instance, completely ignore three major wars that were affecting the entire country. Numerous British-set historical dramas in film and TV also ignore or manipulate some elements of reality. If these authors and scriptwriters can adjust reality to make their stories work, why can't Belle?

reply

First of all, I'm not interested in the film "Belle" - I like the real story best. I've been aware about those two girls and their story for a couple of decades. I saw their portrait, I read about them a lot.

The story they've made for the film far from being on the Austen-Thackeray level. Weird you chose such names to strengthen your reasons...
Austen not writing about war - why should she, no, why war theme was chosen by you? Why not... jungles, pirating, slave trade after all, which at least close to the theme we are talking about). Austen didn't deal with these questions either. She stated once that money was all her novels were about. Not joking, and if some ladies chose to believe she was a highly romantic writer - that's wrong. She was practical through and through. That's why all she wrote, say, about Mr Bingley and Mr Darcy - their exact income and that they were gentlemen from the North. Which was enough, it meant they were truly advanced generation: one of them from the trade with some money, and the second from the old landowners, but surely making his pretty income of 10000-a-year from construction/building materials for example. The very start of industrial revolution. That's how woman-writer Austen approach to such unwomanly matters as economics of the time.

And btw, Austen gave no example of mixing races or what. Never. She taught her readers that one must be very caution, making risky steps, in money-marriage affairs above all.
Thackeray? But come, it was half-a-century later! You can't see the difference in era and situation? Quite another times, when nouveaux riches were ready to prevail, whereas old aristocracy, right, started to trade their titles. They were all they owned still. Well, close to.

reply

In the film Belle had two thousand pounds a year, not altogether. She was definitely an heiress. A shame that the same wasn't true in real life.

reply

It's not a matter of shame.
Just a reality. No fairies around to throw money and titles. To kick aside a lawful heir and make some illegitimate girl an heiress. The film is no more than a plain predictable as a hell tear-squeezer.

reply

@tovangar,

Thanks for this information and especially for listing your resources. I enjoyed the movie as it was refreshing compared to the tragedies that continued/continues in America. I did find the resolutions a bit too simplistic and look forward to continuing research on this family. If I get a chance to go back to London I will try and visit Kenwood House.

reply

Interesting, thanks for the info. I guess it's true that real life isn't as romantic as the movies (tho I did love this movie - a lot).

reply

Well, that is interesting! Thank you! And it sounds much more real than the film - frankly, I was disapointed by its banality. The match to Oliver Ashford: it was a disgrace for a member of titled family to marry even a merchant´s daughter then - not to mention illegitimate! Yes, a steward seems a much logical match for her.

reply