Prince Of Wales In Gambling Scandal
The social life of the Prince of Wales was under the spotlight this month when he was called to give evidence in a high-society gambling trial.
The scandal came about when Prince Albert, always known by his intimates as Bertie, was attending the Doncaster Races during the St Leger week in 1890. He was staying at Tranby Croft near Hull, the home of wealthy shipowner Arthur Wilson.
The gentlemen assembled there played baccarat. This was questionable behaviour, because baccarat was illegal in Britain for being a gambling game of chance not skill. Bertie was so familiar with it that he brought his own baccarat counters and was banker for the game that the friends played.
Conviviality wore thin, however, when one gentleman was suspected by the others of cheating. Sir William Gordon-Cumming, a lieutenant-colonel in the Scots Guards, was a friend of the prince. One of the players thought he saw Gordon-Cumming surreptitiously adding to his stake; he told the others, and the next day they watched GordonCumming who again acted suspiciously.
The Wilson family sought advice from royal courtiers who, with the agreement of the prince, confronted Gordon-Cumming. Under a promise of discretion, they persuaded him to sign a document promising that he would never play cards again.
That could have been an end to the matter, were it not for Daisy, Lady Brooke, a society beauty who was the prince’s favourite mistress. Nicknamed ‘Babbling Brooke’ for her inability to keep a secret, she was the source of gossip that called Gordon-Cumming’s honour into question. Soon everyone in London society was discussing the affair.
Gordon-Cumming brought an action against the five people who claimed to have witnessed the cheating, and subpoenaed the prince as a witness.
The case was heard on 1–9 June 1891. Bertie was obliged to give evidence in a trial that resulted in defeat for GordonCumming. He was dismissed from the Army, and expelled from his clubs.
For the prince it was a matter of humiliation to have his private life examined in public. The Times reflected the public mood when it accused him of “questionable pleasures” that had put the “monarchical principle” at risk.