In the 17th century this type of chair was known as a backstool, revealing its origins, and its perception at the time, as a stool with an added back, rather than as a chair without arms. Part of the explanation for this is that backstools were made in sets, like stools, whereas an armchair was traditionally a singleton, and in many houses there would have been just one, to be occupied by the most important person present (the owner or an honoured guest). The term 'backstool' remained in use for much of the 18th century - long after 'chair' also gained currency, and long after armchairs began to be made in sets (in the late 17th century).
The furniture historian Percy Macquoid claimed that this kind of chair 'was termed a farthingale chair', in the belief that the type was devised to accommodate the farthingale dress worn by women in the late 16th and early 17th centuries (<i>The History of English Furniture</i>, Vol. I, <i>The Age of Oak</i> (1904), p. 179). This romanticising term was retained by historians of furniture for much of the 20th century. See under References.
The chair has been re-polished with a dark-pigmented wax, probably in a misguided attempt to make it look like oak. This intervention very likely took place in the early 20th century, perhaps when F. C. Harper acquired the chair, or possibly earlier.
The beech back legs may well have been stained originally, to look like the walnut used for the rest of the frame. The back legs are continuous with the upright members of the upholstered back-frame, so they are made of beech to avoid wasting walnut - a much more expensive wood - in areas where it would not be seen. The convention of using beech, stained where visible, for the full-height back uprights of an upholstered chair continued well into the 18th century (as long as walnut remained the principal wood used for fashionable furniture).