“Only the command of my King could induce me to speak against the Queen, and it is with a sense of the deepest humility, and with horror and grief, that I proceed to investigate the conduct of Queen Caroline Matilda, and submit the proofs that she has broken her marriage vow. I am compelled to indict her Majesty on these counts, because above all others the King’s marriage bed must be kept pure and undefiled. As a husband the King can demand this right, and he is bound to assert it for the honour of his royal house, and the welfare of his nation. As a husband the King can demand this right given him by the marriage vow; as the head of his royal house he is bound to guard the supremacy, antiquity, honour and purity of the Danish royal family. The virtues of this exalted family are known to the whole world; but if a foreign stock were grafted on the royal stem, and the offspring of lackeys came to bear the name of the King, the antiquity of this exalted family would cease, its supremacy weaken, its respect be lost, its honour abased, and its purity sullied.... Hence his Majesty, as husband of his wife, as first of his race, and as King of his people, has appointed this commission. His personal right, the honour of his house, and the security of the nation simultaneously demand that the justice and loyalty which animate this commission should, in accordance with the law of God, the law of nature, and the law of this country, dissolve the marriage tie which binds Christian VII. to her Majesty, Caroline Matilda.”
Bang then proceeded to submit his evidence. It may be divided into five heads.
First and foremost, there was the confession of Struensee on February 21, a confession which he repeated subsequently on February 24 with the fullest details, and signed with his own hand.
Secondly, there was the Queen’s confirmation of this document, which she signed at Kronborg on March 9. By doing so she admitted that she had broken her marriage vow, and so forfeited her rights as wife and queen.
But since it might be argued that these confessions were extorted by threat, torture or other unfair means, the evidence of other persons was submitted. Moreover, according to the law of Denmark, it was not alone sufficient that the accused persons should confess their guilt, as for divers reasons, known to themselves, they might not be speaking the truth. The advocate, therefore, proceeded to quote the evidence of a great number of witnesses, who had been previously examined by the commission. This evidence went to show that so long ago as the winter of 1769 and the beginning of 1770 the Queen’s bed-chamber women and sundry lackeys formed suspicions that there was something wrong between Struensee and the Queen. They therefore spied on the Queen’s movements, and set a trap for Struensee, with the result that their suspicions were confirmed. After taking counsel together, these women, “with quaking hearts and tear-laden eyes,” approached the Queen, who, seeing them thus disturbed, asked them kindly what was the matter. They then, instead of telling her they had spied, said there were evil rumours about the court concerning herself and Struensee, that the Queen-Dowager was aware of them, and threatened to bring the matter before the Council of State. They affected to believe that the rumours were unfounded, but wished the Queen to be more careful. The Queen apparently neither admitted nor denied anything; at that time she was ill, and Struensee was the medical attendant sent her by the King, but she said that she would consult him about it, and perhaps if she did not see him so often the rumours would die out. But after the Queen had consulted Struensee, she changed her tone, and said to her women: “Do you know that any woman who speaks in such a way about the Queen can be punished by the loss of her tongue?”
At this point the evidence of the lady-in-waiting, von Eyben, was taken, who said that what the Queen had denied to her women she had confessed to her. She found her mistress one day weeping and in great distress, and on asking what was the matter, the Queen told her of the whole affair, confessed that she was guilty, and said that Struensee had advised her to bribe the women, which she refused to do.
Then came the deposition of Professor Berger, now under arrest, who said that, though he had no positive evidence, the intimacy between the Queen and Struensee had appeared to him most suspicious. Struensee behaved towards the Queen with a familiarity that was improper, considering their relative positions.
The evidence of Brandt was also taken. Brandt declared that Struensee had confided to him the intrigue, but his confidence was unnecessary, as every word and look which passed between the Queen and Struensee showed that they were deeply attached to one another. Sometimes they quarrelled, and the Queen was very jealous of Struensee, but they always became reconciled again, and were better friends than before. Struensee’s apartments at Christiansborg, Frederiksberg and Hirschholm were so arranged that he could go from them to the Queen’s rooms unnoticed.