A certain conventional wisdom holds that Emperor Norton adopted the title "Protector of Mexico" around the time French emperor Napoleon III invaded Mexico in 1862 and installed his puppet ruler Maximilian I in 1864 — and that the Emperor dropped his "Protector" title a few years later.
The documentary record says otherwise.
Evidence suggests that Emperor Norton did not start using "Protector of Mexico" until early 1866, more than halfway into Maximilian’s tenure, but makes clear that he kept using the title — both to advocate for Mexico and for general purposes — for the rest of his life.
A surprising find: Norton I expanded his title to "Emperor of the United States and Mexico" in 1861.
By the time the Emperor assumed his protectorship of Mexico, he had relinquished his emperorship of that country.
Read More
Emperor Norton's reign in San Francisco coincided with the advent and growth of opera in his adopted city.
In one of the Emperor's earlier Proclamations, published in December 1865, he enjoins his subjects to attend and support the opera, writing: "The man that has no music in his soul is fit for Treason, Strategem, and Spoils. Let no such man be trusted....The Nation that supports music shows an advancement in Civilization and Refinement."
In April 1872, Emperor Norton returns to these themes in a Proclamation that focuses on a specific company, the Bianchi troupe, that had been identified with opera in San Francisco for nearly 15 years — but now was failing.
Several episodes in the Bianchi story illustrate the challenges that beset the enterprise of opera in San Francisco during this period — challenges that lay at the heart of the Emperor's recognition that, in order for any opera troupe to nourish the public soul, it first must succeed as a business enterprise.
Read More
In September 2020, The Emperor Norton Trust uncovered a San Francisco Daily Evening Bulletin article from 26 May 1860 reporting that Emperor Norton had “again donned his epaulettes” for the previous evening’s promenade on San Francisco’s Montgomery Street.
The suggestion was that the Emperor had been seen wearing epaulettes before. But, the May 1860 article was — and has remained — the earliest documented sighting of the Emperor wearing his uniform in public.
Of course, the “best available evidence” is the “best” only until it is supplanted by something better.
This past week, we found two such pieces of evidence: contemporaneous reports of Emperor Norton wearing a uniform in March of 1860 — two months earlier than our previous finding indicated.
In one report, the Emperor debuted his new regalia during the St. Patrick’s Day festivities of 17 March 1860.
In another, he wore it to a performance of Richard III that was staged at Maguire’s Opera House, Washington Street, on 28 March 1860.
Part of the new documentation is a superb lengthy letter from the San Francisco correspondent of the Mountain Democrat newspaper of Placerville, Calif. — about “the movements of Joshua Norton.” The letter is worth the price of admission!
Click below for details.
Read More
Even at the most storied research libraries and historical societies, the catalog records for artifacts like early photographs — including basic details like the date and the photographer — can be notoriously unreliable.
Often, these records were created decades, even a century or more, ago — long before the advent of library science as a professional research discipline — and have not been reassessed or updated since then. Digitized, perhaps, but basically fossilized and forgotten. What this means for researchers is that catalog info can be little more than a starting point.
For the last decade, The Emperor Norton Trust has used 1864 as the date for two photographs of the Emperor that appear to have been taken during the same sitting. The date was from the catalog record of a major research institution — and, based on a variety of contextual factors, it was the only credible citation we were able to find.
Recently, we noted that the institution has removed this citation. This, together with our discovery of a new piece of evidence potentially relating to the photographs, prompted us to take a second look at the date question.
As a result of our investigation, we have revised our date for these photos.
Read More
Edward Payson Hammond was a celebrity preacher — a Billy Graham of his day.
Today, Hammond is much less well-known in the annals of American religion than his crusading contemporary, Dwight Lyman Moody.
But, in the 1860s and 1870s, E.P. Hammond was a phenomenon.
In February 1875, Hammond brought his traveling revival road show to San Francisco for what turned out to be a two-month stand.
To get preaching gigs like this, Hammond claimed to produce hundreds — even thousands — of “conversions” everywhere he went.
To gin up these numbers, Hammond’s stock-in-trade was badgering tiny children into believing that they were evil sinners in danger of hellfire.
Emperor Norton was not down with this — and, he found a way to say so in a Proclamation that was published on both sides of San Francisco Bay in March 1875.
Read More
At the suggestion and request of The Emperor Norton Trust, the Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library at Yale University has corrected its description of a carte de visite photograph by Jacob Shew that was misidentified as being possibly of Emperor Norton.
Read More
For some 35 years, students of the Emperor Norton story have followed William Drury’s account, in his 1986 biography of the Emperor, of the events surrounding Joshua Norton’s declaration of himself as Emperor on 17 September 1859.
According to Drury: George Fitch was editor of the San Francisco Daily Evening Bulletin on that day. Fitch’s office was in an upstairs room at 517 Clay Street. Joshua Norton marched his Proclamation into Fitch’s office that morning, and Fitch published it that afternoon.
But, that’s not how it went.
The Bulletin didn’t have an outpost on Clay Street until 1861. In 1859, the paper’s only offices were on Montgomery Street — on a site now occupied by the Transamerica pyramid.
And: Although George Fitch was a partner at the Bulletin in September 1859, he didn’t emerge as “the editor” — as the one with the power to decide what would and would not be published in the paper — until later.
That power resided with the person who actually was the editor on the day Joshua Norton appeared: James W. Simonton.
Read on for another course correction from The Emperor Norton Trust.
Read More
When one reads that Emperor Norton lived in "the Eureka Lodgings" at "624 Commercial Street," it's tempting to imagine that the Eureka was in a building with one address and one use — and that the Eureka was it.
In fact: There were two buildings on the Eureka site between c.1850 and Emperor Norton's death in 1880, with the Eureka building arriving in 1857. Both buildings had three addresses and a variety of business tenants — with the second of the two buildings hosting the Eureka and two previous hotel/lodging establishments that each occupied only a portion of the top two floors.
At various times during the 1860s ― including while the Emperor was living here between 1864/65 and 1880 — the second building was home to some of the best-known and -respected businesses in early San Francisco history.
Both of the buildings on the Eureka site were located between Montgomery and Kearny Streets, with frontages on both Commercial and Clay Streets.
What follows is, we believe, the first published attempt to establish a "tenant timeline" of the Commercial Street frontages of these buildings between c.1850 and 1880.
Read on for some fascinating history — and some terrific advertisements!
Read More
Emperor Norton biographer William Drury made the grandiose claim, in 1986, that the first theatrical depiction of Emperor Norton took place on 17 September 1861 — the second anniversary of the Emperor’s self-declaration in 1859 — and that this was the inaugural production of the theater itself, which opened on this date.
This isn’t true. And, that’s putting it mildly.
But, as born out by historical newspaper documents from 1860 and 1861 — probably getting their first truly public broadcast here — what is true is interesting on its own.
Read More
Popular accounts of Emperor Norton — including the respected 1986 biography by William Drury — have Joshua Norton as a “charter member” of Occidental Lodge No. 22 of Free and Accepted Masons.
This is inaccurate. It also is not the point.
For what bears real consideration is that Joshua sought and was granted membership in the Occidental Lodge between May 1854 and May 1855, the very moment when — at every professional, legal, financial and personal level — he was approaching the depths of his instability, vulnerability and failure.
Also documented here: Two illustrious San Franciscans who were members of the Occidental Lodge at the same time that Joshua Norton was.
Read More
It appears that the earliest known photograph of Emperor Norton is a little earlier than we thought — and earlier than anyone else has said.
The case for the time frame that we focus on here draws on early artistic depictions of the Emperor and on one of the Emperor’s earliest sartorial choices, which is documented in an easy-to-miss newspaper item from May 1860.
Read More
Here's a "mystery" about Emperor Norton that may be less mysterious than many seem to think. Despite persistent speculation that Joshua Norton left San Francisco for a period of months or years just before declaring himself Emperor in 1859, the available evidence points to a narrative in which, most likely, the eventual Emperor remained a resident of the City from his arrival until his death.
Read More