Who was afraid of Prince Rupert's dog?: The enduring power of seventeenth-century propaganda

April 27, 2011
Who was afraid of Prince Rupert's dog?: The enduring power of seventeenth-century propaganda
Rupert's dog was reputed to be a witch or 'familiar spirit'

Research by an historian at the University of Southampton has revealed how modern scholars have been led astray by a 350-year-old propaganda campaign.

Popular histories of the English Civil War of 1642-46 – fought between the Royalists and the Parliamentarians - make frequent reference to a dog named ‘Boy’, which belonged to King Charles I’s nephew Prince Rupert. The authors of these histories confidently state that Boy was believed by the Parliamentarians to be a ‘dog-witch’ who was in league with the devil.

Until now, it has been generally accepted that Parliamentarian soldiers were terrified of this animal and that they quaked at the thought of going into battle against Prince Rupert and his sinister canine companion. However, research by Professor Mark Stoyle has revealed that the idea that the Parliamentarians were petrified of Boy was, in fact, an invention of the Royalists: an early example of wartime propaganda.

Mark comments, “It was the Parliamentarians themselves who were the first to hint that Rupert possessed occult powers, in an attempt to paint the Royalist cause as literally ‘satanic’. But their plan backfired when Royalists took up their enemies’ claims, exaggerated them and used them to their own advantage in order to portray the Parliamentarians as gullible fools.”

This process began with the Royalist writer John Cleveland, who mocked the King’s enemies in a satirical poem, which not only declared that the Parliamentarians believed Rupert to possess magical powers, but also suggested that they viewed the prince’s dog as his ‘devil’ or ‘familiar spirit’.

Cleveland’s poem was swiftly followed by a fake Parliamentarian pamphlet – in fact produced by a Royalist writer – which listed the powers Boy was claimed to possess, including one suggestion that he was able to catch bullets in his mouth. Thereafter, fantastical stories about Boy continued to spread until Rupert was defeated at the battle of Marston Moor in 1644 and his famous dog was killed. The Parliamentarians won the Civil War two years later.

Mark says, “During the course of my research, I’ve found very little evidence to suggest that the belief that Boy was a ‘familiar spirit’ was genuinely widespread in the Parliamentarian camp. Instead, it was the Victorian rediscovery of the mischievous satires, which the Royalists had written about Boy, which led to the claim that the Parliamentarians had been terrified of Prince Rupert’s dog – a claim which was written into the history books.”

“Thus the myth of the magical prince and his ‘devil dog’ demonstrates the power of seventeenth-century propaganda to confuse and deceive us, even to this day.”

Explore further: Map sheds light on English Civil War

More information: The strange story of Prince Rupert’s dog (thought to be a hunting-poodle) began in 1642, when Charles I summoned his nephew to assist him against his enemies in Parliament. Rupert was swift to answer his uncle’s call, and was made General of the Royalist cavalry. As the King’s army advanced on London, Parliamentarians grew increasingly shrill in their denunciations of the foreign prince who marched at the head of the Royalist forces.

Related Stories

Map sheds light on English Civil War

March 2, 2011

A geographical map depicting landowners’ loyalties to the restored King Charles II after the English Civil War has shown that contrary to popular opinion, peace was not assured in the 1660s, long after the war had ended ...

Modern society made up of all types

November 4, 2010

Modern society has an intense interest in classifying people into ‘types’, according to a University of Melbourne Cultural Historian, leading to potentially catastrophic life-changing outcomes for those typed – ...

Burns' mistress Highland Mary invented by objects

March 15, 2011

The legend of ‘Highland Mary’ – Robert Burns’ most celebrated and mysterious muse - was largely constructed through statues and objects, academics at the University of Glasgow claim.

Baby boomers are reinventing retirement

October 11, 2010

(PhysOrg.com) -- The challenges faced by recent retirees are changing how we plan for and expect to experience retirement in the future, say the academics working on a new University of Melbourne study.

Recommended for you

Scientists make new discovery about bird evolution

March 24, 2017

In a new paper published in National Science Review, a team of scientists from the Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology, the Shandong Tianyu Museum of Nature, and the Nanjing Institute of Geology and ...

Study into who is least afraid of death

March 24, 2017

A new study examines all robust, available data on how fearful we are of what happens once we shuffle off this mortal coil. They find that atheists are among those least afraid of dying... and, perhaps not surprisingly, ...

Mathematical framework explains diverse plant stem forms

March 23, 2017

It is well known that as plants grow, their stems and shoots respond to outside signals like light and gravity. But if plants all have similar stimuli, why are there so many different plant shapes? Why does a weeping willow ...

How chewing like a cow helped early mammals thrive

March 23, 2017

You probably haven't given much thought to how you chew, but the jaw structure and mechanics of almost all modern mammals may have something to do with why we're here today. In a new paper published this week in Scientific ...

'Pay to publish' schemes rampant in science journals

March 22, 2017

Dozens of scientific journals appointed a fictive scholar to their editorial boards on the strength of a bogus resume, researchers determined to expose "pay to publish" schemes reported Wednesday.

1 comment

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

not rated yet Apr 27, 2011
Parliamentarians won an important victory. The English have not had an actual ruling monarch for over four hundred years. I'd feel a little foolish being a king of England at this time, since it don't mean a damned thing, just a face on a stamp. We all know now that political authority can't be inherited.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.