Chapter 28

The Murder that Inspired Romeo and Juliet 1594

In William Shakespeare’s play Romeo and Juliet, a feud between the House of Montague and the House of Capulet leads to murder. At around the time it was written there was a real case of a feud between two leading families in Elizabethan England leading to a violent and controversial death. It was an incident of which Shakespeare would have been well aware and was almost certainly one of the bard’s inspirations for the plot of his famous work.

The feud between the Danvers and the Longs, two of the most prestigious families in Wiltshire, dated back decades. Bloodfeuds were a relatively common feature of Tudor life and revenge killings were thought of, not so much as murder, but what the contemporary writer Francis Bacon called: ‘a kind of wild justice.’ Bacon thought that the law ought to weed out this contemptible behaviour. The reality was that if the families involved were important enough, those who oversaw the law in Elizabethan England might act leniently in such cases.

The very manner in which the Danvers family took up residence at the Wiltshire manor of Dauntsey set the tone for the bloodshed which would follow. At the end of the fifteenth century, the last heir to the manor there was a young man called Edward Stradling. In about 1488 he seems to have been murdered in a robbery along with his mother. Edward’s sister, Anne, had inherited the manor and married into the Danvers family. By the 1590s Sir John Danvers was head of the family and had ten children, the most prominent of which were his eldest sons Charles, who served as an MP for Cirencester, and Henry, who became a soldier. The neighbouring Longs had been important landowners in Wiltshire since the twelfth century and had major estates at Draycot and South Wraxall. From 1581 Sir Walter Long, who evidently liked the high life, was the head of the family and a serving member of parliament. The wealth of both families meant that they kept on a large number of retainers, the very existence of which upped the ante when it came to disagreements.

It’s not known exactly what caused the feud between these two great families but by the Elizabethan era the Danvers were linked to a faction that supported Robert Devereux, 2nd Earl of Essex, while the Longs had associations with Sir Walter Raleigh. Raleigh and Essex were at loggerheads during this period. It is likely, however, that more day to day issues were at the root of the tensions between the two families as they jostled for local dominance and that these eventually simmered over with tragic consequences.

Years of grudge and grievance would be brought to a dramatic crescendo on Friday 4 October, 1594. John Aubrey, the seventeenth century writer, stated that the very public killing that occurred on that day was planned at the parsonage in the village of Great Somerford, apparently with the connivance of the parson himself. Other accounts reveal that on the morning of the 4th Sir Charles and his brother Sir Henry, both then in their twenties, rode out together making for the town of Corsham to confront the Longs, accompanied by around eighteen hangers-on assembled in the ‘most riotous manner’. It’s clear that the Danvers knew just where to find their intended quarry that day.

There are conflicting accounts about what happened next, but the official coroner’s record states that at about 12 o’clock, in the daytime, the Danvers burst into the house of one Chamberlayne, probably an inn, armed with swords and pistols. Here Sir Walter Long and his brother Henry were having a grand dinner. Seated at the table along with the Longs were many other gentlemen, including some of the justices of the peace of Wiltshire. If the Danvers had wanted to keep this confrontation a secret, then they had chosen the wrong venue.

According to the coroner’s inquisition held the next day, Henry Danvers then ‘voluntarily, feloneously and of malice prepense,’ pulled out a small pistol and ‘did discharge in and upon’ the said Henry Long, ‘a certain engine called a dagge, worth 6s 8d, with powder and bullet of lead.’ The coroner, William Snelling, recorded that Danvers had been holding the gun in his right hand when he fired and inflicted ‘a mortal wound upon the upper part of the body of Long under the left breast of which wound he instantly died.’ Having killed Long the Danvers brothers immediately fled the scene. Long wasn’t the only victim it seems. While his brother Walter had narrowly escaped death, a poor servant by the name of Barnard, who had simply been waiting at table, had also been killed in the commotion.

Whether either of the Danvers men really had planned to kill Long, or simply wanted to give him and his coterie a fright we shall never know. But following the coroner’s inquisition they were immediately outlawed. Lady Barbara Long, Henry’s mother, wrote to inform Queen Elizabeth ‘of a verie strange outrage’ and the Lords of the Council at the royal palace of Nonsuch in Surrey acted quickly sending an official order on 7 October to the High Sherriff of Wiltshire to ‘apprehend so manie of those that were in this ryottus action as you maie by anie meanes have a notyce of, and to cause them to be comytted and straightlie examined concemynge the plott and purpose of this fowle attempt and murther.’ A footboy called Henrie Bainton was specifically put on the wanted list as it was said that he had been sent in ahead of the killers to observe where everyone was sitting – adding weight to the idea that the murder had been premeditated.

Meanwhile the Danvers had been making good their escape. At ‘8 or nine o’clock’ on the Saturday morning after the killing the Danvers arrived at the estate of their friend, the Earl of Southampton at Titchfield hoping for refuge. There’s no direct evidence that the Earl knew the Danvers had been planning murder but he certainly helped them in their quest to avoid capture and was complicit in destroying evidence. He organised for the brothers to be hidden at a place called Whitely Lodge on his estate where they then laid up for a few days. A bloody shirt and saddle were spirited away by some of Southampton’s servants. The Danvers were guided as far as Calshot Castle at the mouth of Southampton Water and subsequently smuggled out across the Channel to Calais before their pursuers could catch them.

Despite the findings of the inquest and the fact that the Danvers brothers were outlawed, no actual indictment for murder was ever brought against them, despite many eye witness accounts and potential testimony from those involved in getting them out of the country. As was often the case, those of high rank could bring considerable influence to bear. Sir John Danvers having died, his wife, Lady Elizabeth Danvers, began a long campaign to get her sons a pardon, including petitioning the Privy Council. In her account a very different version of the murder was presented, in which Sir Charles arrived to give Long several, ‘blowes with a cudgel (without offring anie other weapon or violence) and being therewith satisfied offered to departe the chamber.’ It went on to allege that Long had then attacked Charles Danvers, dangerously wounding him and that when Henry arrived to find his brother ‘bleeding and fayntinge’ he shot Long to prevent Charles’ death. It seemed a rather contorted account and implied that everyone else who had been present at the dinner had been lying.

She also gave an alleged back story to the killing. Sir John Danvers, being a local magistrate, had committed a servant of Sir Walter for robbery but Sir Walter had intervened to ‘rescue’ him and had even himself been temporarily imprisoned for meddling in the course of justice. Danvers then committed some other servants of the Longs for murder and, in retaliation, Sir Walter provoked an affray in which one of the Danvers’ servants was killed. Sir John’s principal servant was also said to have been insulted by having a glass of beer thrown in his face. What really seems to have triggered the shooting was a series of letters Sir Charles Danvers had received from Henry Long. In one he threatened to whip him and had called him, ‘ape, puppie, foole and boye’. The letters had been ‘of such form as the heart of a man had rather die than endure’. Lady Danvers aimed to show that her sons had been driven by the Longs’ continued insolence to seek a public reckoning. Furthermore, she went on to allege that since Long’s death Sir Walter had sought to corrupt witnesses to his brother’s murder and have hedges on the Danvers estate pulled down to boot.

Safely abroad, the Danvers brothers now entered the army of Henry IV, the French king. Two years after Henry Long’s death they were lobbying to go home, hoping enough time had passed to be forgiven for the ‘gentleman’s quarrel’. On 3 October 1596, the Earl of Shrewsbury sent a letter from France to Sir Robert Cecil, one of Elizabeth’s closest advisers, telling him, ‘Heare is daily with me Sir Charles and Sir H. Davers, two discreet fine gentlemen, who cary themselves heare with great discretion, reputacion and respect.’ He knew of the allegations against them but continued, ‘God turne the eyes of her Majestic to incline unto them, agreable to her own naturall disposition, and I doubt not but they shall soon taste of her pittie and mercie.’ It seems that by 1597, their attempts at rehabilitation were making good progress as Henry Danvers was accepted back into the English armed forces.

In 1598, Lady Danvers, clearly a formidable matriarch, made a new marriage to Sir Edmund Carey, who just happened to be a cousin of the queen. Soon all her efforts on behalf of her headstrong sons were rewarded. That June, Elizabeth decreed that both the Danvers should be pardoned, on the condition that they paid Sir Walter Long £1,500. By 1599, Sir Charles and Sir Henry were reported to be back on English shores, in London.

Charles’ luck did not last long. Not content with having narrowly escaped the noose, he snubbed the monarch who had given him his pardon, joining the Earl of Essex’s abortive rebellion against the crown in 1601. He was beheaded on 18 March at Tower Hill.

Henry Danvers, on the other hand, prospered. On his return to England he joined the army in Ireland, distinguishing himself and under James I he was restored as heir to his father’s estates and made Baron Dauntsey. Later, in the reign of Charles I, he would garner more honours, being made Earl of Danby. The fact that he was officially an outlaw, despite his pardon and advancement, obviously stuck in his craw for some years. In 1604, he challenged the Corsham coroner’s original findings with a ‘writ of error’. This sought to overturn the decision to outlaw not on the basis that he was innocent, but merely on legal technicalities. He was successful and the coroner’s judgement was found to be bad. Henry Danvers lived until the age of seventy, dying in 1643 and outliving his rival, Sir Walter Long, by thirty-three years. His burial in a ‘great marble monument’ at the church in Dauntsey is an unusual edifice for a man who had almost certainly killed a man in cold blood, but got away with it because he had the right connections.

On the very weekend that he had given the Danvers brothers protection, the Earl of Southampton was celebrating his twenty-first birthday and had held a feast at Titchfield. Some have suggested that William Shakespeare might have been present at this occasion, as Southampton was probably one of his patrons. More likely is that Shakespeare learned of the story from his friend, the Italian linguist John Florio, who was in the employ of Southampton and was involved in helping the Danvers get passage out of the country. This link has led many experts to see the story of Henry Long’s death as an inspiration for Romeo and Juliet, a play which appeared the following year and tells the tale of two tragic lovers whose deaths bring about the end of a long running feud. In the play the action is given an Italian backdrop, but many aspects of the drama do seem to echo the real life Danvers and Long debacle. The feud between the Danvers and Longs mirrors the hatred of the Montague and Capulet families. There are the brawls between the servants of the two families, just like the spats between the Danvers and Longs retainers. Long’s murder has similarities with Tybalt’s slaying in the play – at least the Danvers’ version of it, which would have been the version that Shakespeare heard. Romeo’s flight to Padua is an echo of the Danvers’ escape to France. Then there is Lady Capulet, bent on revenge somewhat like Lady Danvers, who never gave up trying to get her sons off the hook. Of course, as with many stories about Shakespeare’s sources, there is no absolute proof of the connection between this classic Elizabethan murder and Romeo and Juliet, but it seems to have more grounds than most. The Tudor historian A.L.Rowse was convinced that the parallels could not be put down to coincidence. He correctly pointed out that ‘the affair made a sensation at the time’ and concluded that, ‘the Earl’s poet was inspired by the theme of love and friendship, in the ambience of feud and death.’ He merely gave the whole tale, ‘an Italian setting, and wrote Romeo and Juliet.’

The magnificent marble tomb of Henry Danvers, the 1st Earl of Danby, at St. James the Great in Dauntsey, Wiltshire. A remarkable memorial for a murderer? (Copyright James Moore)