Princess Seraphina: Queer Visibility at the Old Bailey
- Scott Terlouw
- Jun 16
- 6 min read
Updated: Jul 2
In the early hours of May 30, 1732, a person known publicly as “Princess Seraphina” was robbed at knifepoint in London. The legal record identified her as John Cooper, but friends, neighbors, and witnesses knew her as Princess Seraphina, and often used female pronouns to refer to her. With the help of local bystanders, Seraphina apprehended her assailant, Thomas Gordon, and brought him to trial. While robberies in eighteenth-century London were commonplace, this 1732 case stood out. Seraphina was a visible and gender-bending member of the city’s “molly” subculture, a queer community living under the shadow of England’s 1533 Buggery Act, which made acts of sodomy punishable by death. Yet unlike many trials involving queer individuals, Seraphina appeared at the Old Bailey as the complainant, supported by a network of neighbors and allies. Her case opens a window into early queer resistance, community belonging, and gender-transing in plain sight. In 2025, when queer and trans people face a new wave of public scrutiny, legal surveillance, and violent erasure, Princess Seraphina’s story challenges the notion that queer lives were always hidden, always punished, and always alone.
Tavern, social club, and dancehall rolled into one, molly houses were clandestine spaces where London’s urban queer community gathered to drink, socialize, and “be marry’d” (a euphemism among mollies for sex). These gatherings often were held in pubs, coffeehouses, and taverns, and played a vital role in shaping London’s increasingly-visible queer community. The term “molly,” used to describe this network of queer and gender non-conforming people is thought to have originated either from the pet form of the name “Mary” or from “moll,” a slang term for prostitute in London’s criminal underworld. By the end of the eighteenth century, Francis Grose’s 1796 Classical Dictionary of the Vulgar Tongue, defined a molly as “an effeminate fellow, a sodomite.”
During these private gatherings, queer men developed new forms of sexual and gender expression. Often these unique traditions and rituals parodied heterosexual practices, including mock childbirth scenes, and the adoption of feminine “maiden names”’ like “Orange Deb” or “Flying Horse Moll.” Through the 1732 trial testimonies, we learn of John Cooper’s royal sobriquet: several character witnesses referred to Cooper as Princess Seraphina and often used female pronouns in their testimony. When asked by the magistrate for clarification, one witness answered matter-of-factly, “The Prosecutor; he goes by that Name.” (In this spirit, I will use female pronouns and refer to Cooper as Princess Seraphina throughout).
The testimonies provided by Princess Seraphina’s neighbors reveal more than just a mere toleration of her gender nonconformity and same-sex liaisons by her local community. Instead, these records offer evidence of a local network that seemingly accepted and supported her queer and gender-transing identity. The robbery also revealed how violence and blackmail were used to exploit visibly queer people like Princess Seraphina. Despite wearing male attire—“a Coat, a Waistcoat, and a pair of Breeches”—at the time of her robbery, Seraphina’s identity as a molly seemed to be known to her attacker, Gordon, who attempted to blackmail Seraphina into silence. Pressing a knife to her throat, Gordon threatened that if she took him to court, he would, in turn, accuse her of being a sodomite. The very act of bringing Gordon to trial underscored that Princess Seraphina felt confident in the strength of her network, especially given that character witnesses were a routine feature of the Georgian legal system.
Princess Seraphina’s position as a highly visible member of London’s molly subculture was openly discussed in the courtroom. One of Gordon’s character witnesses, Margaret Holder, informed the court that Seraphina earned money by passing communications and letters between “Gentlemen in that way”—a thinly veiled reference to homosexual men. Holder testified that Seraphina was a known sodomite: “one of them as you call Molly Culls, he gets his Bread that way; to my certain Knowledge he has got many a Crown under some Gentlemen, for going of sodomiting Errands.” In other contemporary courtrooms, such an accusation might have resulted in charges of public indecency or intent to commit sodomy. In the case of Princess Seraphina v. Thomas Gordon, however, she was not the one on trial, making this case highly unusual among eighteenth-century prosecutions involving publicly known or visibly-queer individuals. Nor does it appear that Seraphina ever faced legal repercussions for her conduct and reputation as a known sodomite.
The character witnesses called to support Princess Seraphina spoke to her place within the local community. Mary Ryler and Mary Robinson, two of Seraphina’s neighbors, testified that she was a familiar figure, someone who nursed ill neighbors and gossiped with women at the local dressmaker. Robinson recalled a friendly conversation in which the Princess mentioned borrowing a dress from Robinson’s mantua-maker so she could “pick up some Gentlemen to Dance” at a masquerade at Vauxhall. To this, Robinson inquired, “And did you make a good Hand of it, Princess?”
Another neighbor explained that Seraphina, dressed as a woman, frequented her pub on Drury Lane. There she would often inquire “after some Gentlemen of no very good Character.” This neighbor, Mary Poplet, testified openly to Seraphina’s feminine aesthetic with her “white Gown, and a scarlet Cloak, with her Hair frizzled and curl'd all round her Forehead.” Poplet went so far as to say that when Seraphina “would so flutter her Fan, and make such fine Curtsies, that you would not have known her from a Woman.” Notably, these neighbors referred to Seraphina as both “he” and “she” throughout their testimonies, with Mary Ryler telling the court, “Sometimes we call her Princess, and sometimes Miss.” Both Poplet and Ryler attested that Seraphina, dressed in women’s gowns, was a fixture at several balls and masquerades, notably the Ridotto al Fresco held at Vauxhall, a popular site of evening entertainment.
Ultimately, Thomas Gordon was acquitted of robbing Princess Seraphina, due to the strength of his character witnesses. Gordon and several others claimed that this was a case involving an attempted act of sodomy by Princess Seraphina toward Gordon. While this allegation may have played a role in Gordon’s acquittal, the court did not appear interested in pursuing charges of attempted sodomy – or any other such crime -- against her. Rather, Seraphina’s sexuality and gender nonconformity were on full display in the courtroom without legal reprimand, likely due in no small part to the strength of her character witnesses.
However much Princess Seraphina’s sexuality and gender presentation challenged public morality, she was not ostracized by her neighbors or forced to express herself in secret among other mollies. Instead, she moved freely between queer and heterosexual social worlds. To the women who testified on her behalf, she was a familiar neighbor with whom they gossiped, joked, and even shared clothes. Far from hiding in the closet, the colorful life of Princess Seraphina offers evidence of an increasingly visible queer subculture in eighteenth-century London, and defies the notion that queer history is always a story of silence and punishment. At a time when visibility could carry profound risk, Seraphina’s presence in both courtroom and community shows that queer lives were legible, affirmed, and even protected. In an era like our own, her story reminds us that neither queer resistance nor community are new.
Scott Terlouw will begin a PhD program in History at UC Santa Barbara this Fall. His work focuses on sex and sexuality, gender, and queer history in early modern and modern Britain. His previous work on molly houses and the queer community in eighteenth-century London is available here.
The views and opinions expressed in this post are solely those of the original author/s and do not necessarily represent the views of the North American Conference on British Studies. The NACBS welcomes civil and productive discussion in the comments below. Our blog represents a collegial and conversational forum, and the tone for all comments should align with this environment. Insulting or mean comments will not be tolerated and NACBS reserves the right to delete these remarks and revoke the commenter’s site membership.
Comments