By William Myers Special Writer
One of Princeton’s oldest traditions relates that a cannonball fired during the Battle of Princeton entered Nassau Hall’s Chapel and decapitated a portrait of King George II. The story has been embellished and modified over the years, but is there any truth behind this — or is it simply a myth? By reviewing the known facts and alternatives it may be possible to settle the question of what really happened on Jan. 3, 1777.
The earliest relevant account is in the journal of Ebenezer Hazard, a 1762 Princeton graduate. Hazard’s journal remained unpublished until 1974. Under the date Aug. 6, 1777, Hazard wrote “an elegant whole Length Picture of George 2d” was destroyed by American troops. Americans also “defaced that of Governor Belcher.”
Another version was recorded in 1780. The Marquis de Chastellux visited Princeton with Colonel Stephen Moylan. The Colonel had served as Washington’s aide- de-camp during the battle. The Marquis states “The English even carried off from the chapel the portrait of the King of England, a loss for which the Americans easily consoled themselves, declaring they would have no king among them, not even a painted one.” John Witherspoon, president of the college, was Chastellux’s host during his visit.
The inquiry should begin with the Nassau Hall portraits. Jonathan Belcher (who named Nassau Hall) bequeathed his library and a portrait collection to the college. When Belcher died in 1757, the collection was installed in the hall’s chapel. This included a full-length portrait of Belcher in a gilt frame and a collection of the heads of English kings and queens in black frames. Samuel Finley described the Chapel in 1763 as 40 feet square, having a front gallery with an organ. Opposite and at the same height was a stage. “It is also ornamented, on one side, with a portrait of his late majesty, at full length; and, on the other, with a like picture of his excellency governor BELCHER.” It is important to note that Finley described these as “like” (i.e., similar) portraits and that both were full-length. They were both donated by Belcher, according to Finley.
How were the portraits alike? The full-length Belcher is believed to have been by Richard Phillips. Its appearance is preserved in a contemporary mezzotint. Kneller’s famous 1716 portrait of George II as Prince of Wales bears at least a passing resemblance to the Philips portrait. Belcher owned Kneller paintings. If Nassau Hall’s portrait of George II was a Prince of Wales by Kneller, it would have lacked the royal scepter, crown and insignia.
In attempting to explain discrepancies, I suspected the Belcher portrait may have been confused for a portrait of the King by less attentive viewers, such as participants in the battle or occupying troops — the very people who would have propagated the cannonball story. If one or both had already been defaced, that might add to confusion over their identity. Only one gilt frame is mentioned in the Trustee Minutes, and that is Belcher’s. If there were two gilt frames, where did the other go? Was there a case of mistaken identity in the story, the truth of which may rest on the frame?
I consulted Dr. Karl Kusserow, the foremost authority on the surviving frame and Peale’s portrait of Washington. Documents indicate a portrait of King George II was obtained by the college in 1761. Dr. Kusserow’s opinion, based on a matching frame for a royal portrait by John Shackleton in England, is that the Nassau Hall portrait originated from Shackleton’s studio. The frame in England has a royal insignia at precisely the same location where the Princeton frame shows evidence of removal. This would exclude the possibility the frame once contained a portrait of Belcher and confirms the Belcher frame was lost during the Revolution.
Ashbel Green arrived as a student during the autumn of 1782, and described the state of Nassau Hall as he remembered it almost 60 years later. Green recalled that “a number of the balls entered the windows, and made great havoc in the interior of the house.” He also stated many interior partitions were damaged by cannonballs, apparently those of the rooms in the building rather than the chapel. Green’s complete statement concerning the portrait is this: “The large windows, on the south side of the prayer hall, presented a conspicuous mark for the American artillery, and a cannon ball that came in at one of these windows, cut off the head of King George, as it was exhibited in his full length portrait.”
The Trustee Minutes preserve a request that Washington pose for a portrait by Charles Willson Peale to replace “the picture of the late King of Great Britain, which was torn away by a ball from the American artillery in the battle of Princeton.” The entry is dated Sept. 24, 1783. A month later, William Peartree Smith, a Trustee who lived in Belcher’s former home, was requested to replace Belcher’s portrait which had been “destroyed during the late war.”
The story can be seen evolving over time. The Trustees said the portrait was torn away; Green said it was decapitated. Green’s version was circulated at the college in later years and was the source for most historians. Information concerning the paintings may have come to light during the course of the war, of which some was undoubtedly mistaken. The Trustees would have been sufficiently well-informed to sort out the facts. Visitors are often shown a scar on the south side of Nassau Hall, between the second and third windows of the second floor nearest the chapel. The damage was considerably more extensive, “weakening the spandrel between the arches of the windows,” and the stonework filled and repaired. One of the surprising observations I made during a live- fire demonstration of Revolutionary War artillery was the extent these solid iron cannonballs bounce. If one had entered a stone building such as Nassau Hall, it would have ricocheted until embedding itself somewhere, flying out a window or eventually coming to rest on the floor. Anyone entering afterward would have encountered a chaotic scene of destruction. It is plausible this chaos could have included a damaged if not decapitated portrait of King George II.
If mythology were a reflection of actual events, no better story could be imagined than the replacement of Princeton’s portrait of the King of England with one of George Washington. Princeton’s role in the creation of the American Republic cannot be overestimated, even by its most zealous admirers. Its President, Trustees and graduates were involved in every aspect of the Revolution and formation of the Republic.
Witherspoon proposed the Washington portrait and was one of his greatest supporters; he repeatedly expressed his belief that Washington had been placed at the head of the American army by Divine Providence. Witherspoon’s predecessor President Samuel Davies preached in 1755 of the miraculous preservation of 23-year- old George Washington at Braddock’s defeat, the life of which “I cannot but hope Providence has hitherto preserved in so signal a Manner, for some important Service to his Country.” There is mysticism surrounding Princeton’s painting of Washington; it is as if the transformation of America were represented in the fate of a portrait suspended on a chapel wall.
William Myers of Highland Park, writer and translator, is a 10th-generation descendent of Henry Greenland, the Princeton area’s first European settler. Mr. Myers has a particular interest in Princeton history and has researched the subject in depth through historical archives and unpublished contemporary documents.
