Princess Charlotte, tragic daughter of George IV (1796-1817)

[iowabelle]

I wonder. Let's say that a C-section had been performed, and Charlotte died afterwards, leaving Leopold with a baby who was heir to the British throne, either boy or girl.

How do you think the family would have arranged the custody and care of such a child? My guess is that Leopold NEVER would have been permitted to leave the kingdom with the child, and he probably would not have been allowed to accept the Belgian throne.

And I wonder if G3's sons would have run around all getting married,.

[maria-olivia]

In Belgium we knows that the Princess Charlotte of Wales was really in love with her husband Leopold of SCG. When she would be Queen she said he would be King and not a Prince.
What happened with Charlotte was a Doctor's mistake and he commited suicide .
Leopold went back to Germany , he lost his wife, his child and the british throne.
He refused the throne of Greece and accepted to be King of the Belgians. His second wedding was arranged. He married Louise Marie daughter of the King of the French, Louis-Philippe. Their first child called Louis-Philippe died when he was one year old..
Terrible for Leopold , but after they had 3 children , Leopold ,future King Leopold II,
Philippe Count of Flanders , and one daughter. Louise Marie accepted to call her Charlotte as the late Princess of Wales. In their dinning room there was a painture of Charlotte of Wales, this painting can be seen in our Royal Palace during the summer holidays. Louise-marie died at the age of 38.

[Marsel]

Originally Posted by iowabelle

I wonder. Let's say that a C-section had been performed, and Charlotte died afterwards, leaving Leopold with a baby who was heir to the British throne, either boy or girl.

How do you think the family would have arranged the custody and care of such a child? My guess is that Leopold NEVER would have been permitted to leave the kingdom with the child, and he probably would not have been allowed to accept the Belgian throne.

And I wonder if G3's sons would have run around all getting married,.

Leopold would most certainly not be allowed to become Belgian King, should his son with Charlotte survive: the child would be heir to both Kingdoms, and that would be unacceptable for France and the Netherlands, who, alongside Britain, were the main powers deciding Belgium's fate during the National Congress. Leopold's candidacy wouldn't even be considered.

I doubt Leopold would be forbidden to take his son abroad, should he wish to, at least for short periods.
He would also be named Regent in the case George IV died before the child's adulthood (similar to Victoria and her mother). As father of the future King, George IV would most probably create Leopold a Prince of the United Kingdom, give him a Dukedom and the style ‘Royal Highness’ (the latter was done anyway: King George showed how much he appreciated his son-in-law when he created Leopold “Royal Highness” a year after Princess Charlotte’s death).


If Leopold and Charlotte's son survived and was a healthy baby, there would be no reason for King George's sons to rush into marriages: they were forced to marry because of lack of any Heir. Should the child be sickly or weak, perhaps they would still be forced to marry to produce the 'spare'.

Originally Posted by maria-olivia

In Belgium we knows that the Princess Charlotte of Wales was really in love with her husband Leopold of SCG. When she would be Queen she said he would be King and not a Prince.
<...>
... Louise Marie accepted to call her Charlotte as the late Princess of Wales
<...>

That was certainly a love match, just like Victoria and Albert's marriage. But however much Charlotte loved her husband, she couldn't just make him a King. Even Queen Victoria, who loved Albert just as passionately, achieved nothing more than a "Prince Consort" title for her husband.

The only two times husbands of English Queen Regnant were Kings as well were Philip of Spain (Mary I's husband) and William of Orange (Mary II's husband).
Philip of Spain was a Monarch (his father had to create him King of Naples and titular King of Jerusalem to elevate him to Mary's rank).
Under the terms of the marriage treaty, Philip was to be styled "King of England", all official documents were signed by both of them. However, Philip was never a King Regnant of England: he was styled 'King Philip' because, well, he was a King (of Naples and Jerusalem, and later, of Spain).
Mary II and William of Orange were invited by the British Parliament to 'conquer' the country (the Glorious Revolution): they were joint Rulers and reigned together as Mary II and William III. They had equal powers. As both were Monarchs in their own right, the one that survived the other was to Reign till his/her death (as it were, William survived Mary). The greatest recognition of William's status came perhaps in the fact that if, following Mary's death, he had children with another woman, those children would be in line of the succession.
Nevertheless, it is important to note that William and Mary were invited to be joint rulers, and William could claim the Kingship by right of conquest, however peaceful as well (rather like Henry VII, the first Tudor King), so his situation is not comparable with Leopold's.

Leopold might become the true power behind the throne, even the de facto ruler, but I seriously doubt the Parliament would ever consider creating him a King.

I always thought Louise Marie did an extremely selfless and nice thing in deciding to name one of her daughter in honour of her husband's beloved first wife.

[maria-olivia]

If the little Prince was still alive , Leopold should have stayed in Great Britain and should have been an excellent Regent. He was appreciated by all the Royal Houses.
He still had a castel/house in England , where his father in law , Louis-Philippe lived with his family after his abdication.

[iowabelle]

I have my doubts that the Hanoverians would have allowed anyone out of the family to raise the future monarch of England, or serve as Regent. And I bet Parliament would have thrown a hissy fit about that prospect too.

As for Leopold being King after Charlotte's succession, I think Parliament would have avoided that too, given the precedents of unwelcome foreign husbands.

[Grace Angel]

I think had his son lived, Leopold would have been involved in his life. It may bot have been popular with the Hanoverians, but I think Leopold would have had a hand in raising him. The only other people who maybe could have raised him where the unmarried sisters of George IV. George IV would have obviosly had some interest in his grandson, but I can't see him raising him except with regards to leaving it to servants, nor he would he have let Caroline of Brunswick whom he didn't like have much to do with the boy, I don't think. She died not that long after her daughter anyway. Victoria was raised by her mother, and although it wasn't popular with the Hanoverians, it was allowed. Perhaps it would have been different in the case of a child's father, not mother though.

[Marsel]

Victoria's mother, whom the King William IV quite frankly hated, was to be appointed Regent, should the King die before Victoria's 18th birthday (Regent without Council to limit her powers). Why should Leopold's case be different? I think there is a high probability he would be appointed Regent till his son's adulthood, and since King George IV died shortly after Princess Charlotte, Leopold would be the de facto ruler.

[Grace Angel]

I agree. Leopold wasn't the type of man not to be involved in his child's upbringing. He liked to give advice and guidence as he did to his niece, the future Queen Victoria. He would defintely have wanted to give advice and guidence to a son of his that would inheirit the British throne.

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by Marsel

Victoria's mother, whom the King William IV quite frankly hated, was to be appointed Regent, should the King die before Victoria's 18th birthday (Regent without Council to limit her powers). Why should Leopold's case be different? I think there is a high probability he would be appointed Regent till his son's adulthood, and since King George IV died shortly after Princess Charlotte, Leopold would be the de facto ruler.

The child would have been 12/13 when his grandfather died. George IV didn't die until 1830.

Leopold would certainly have been involved in his son's upbringing and, I suspect from his son's accession onwards would have acted as Regent for his son and chief adviser when his son turned 18 and became king in reality (in 1834). So for just over 4 years Leopold would have been the Regent.
.

[Grace Angel]

I think he would have made a good regent, he certainly later was a king. His sister, Victoria's mother, did not have the best judgment all the time ( i.e. Sir John Conroy among other things), but Leopold seems to have had better judgment. I think had a son of Charlotte survived some of the marriages of the siblings of George IV would have taken place, as there would only have been one heir who was a child as well, and child mortality in that era was high even if you survived birth.

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by Grace Angel

I think he would have made a good regent, he certainly later was a king. His sister, Victoria's mother, did not have the best judgment all the time ( i.e. Sir John Conroy among other things), but Leopold seems to have had better judgment. I think had a son of Charlotte survived some of the marriages of the siblings of George IV would have taken place, as there would only have been one heir who was a child as well, and child mortality in that era was high even if you survived birth.

As they hadn't bothered to marry while George IV only had one child I don't think the situation that left George with one grandchild rather than one child would have changed anything.

[Marsel]

Not necessarily: if the child were weak, at least some of them might still have to marry.
They didn't bother when Charlotte was alive because it was expected she would marry and have children, thus securing the succession. But succession wouldn't have been secure on the shoulders of a new-born child, with no prospect of other heirs arriving (following Charlotte's death) in at least next 18 years.

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by Marsel

Not necessarily: if the child were weak, at least some of them might still have to marry.
They didn't bother when Charlotte was alive because it was expected she would marry and have children, thus securing the succession. But succession wouldn't have been secure on the shoulders of a new-born child, with no prospect of other heirs arriving (following Charlotte's death) in at least next 18 years.

They hadn't seen a need to marry during Charlotte's childhood and I really don't see that they would have felt a need to marry until there was no heir. While the child lived there wasn't a need for them to give up their happy homes with their mistresses in order to marry some foreign princess while there was a possibility that their child wouldn't get any closer to the throne.

It wasn't until there was no heir that they married and I really don't see any reason to think that that would have been any different while their was an heir, even if he was a minor.

Afterall these Dukes did leave long-term mistresses in order to marry so they were happy in their relationship and having to walk away from those relationships couldn't have been all that easy - but duty (and ambition for their own blood) before love was the way it turned out but while the chance of needing to father the next heir wasn't there I don't see them walking away from their long-term/loving relationships.

[Grace Angel]

Some of them, yes. I think they thought during Charlotte's childhood they still had plenty of time if they planned to marry eventually. However, when Charlotte died, by that time it was their last chance to marry and have heirs. One reason that they married too after Charlotte's death I thought was because people like Victoria's father and the future William IV were massively in debt, and they believed that if they married they'd get more money to pay off their debts.

[hennybenny]

Originally Posted by Marsel

That was certainly a love match, just like Victoria and Albert's marriage.

This is an interesting statement. I just finished reading Charlotte & Leopold: The True Story of The Original People's Princess by James Chambers. The way he presents the information, when Charlotte agreed to marry Leopold, she was basically settling for him, as she saw marriage as her only way out of her controlled, isolated life. Her first choice for a husband had been, in fact, Prince August (of Prussia, I think). She had only met Leopold once in person before she agreed to marry him, but it wasn't until after they were engaged and spent some time together that they really fell in love. If this really is a true representation of the way it happened, I wouldn't call it a love match in the same vein as V & A.

[Iluvbertie]

Originally Posted by Grace Angel

Some of them, yes. I think they thought during Charlotte's childhood they still had plenty of time if they planned to marry eventually. However, when Charlotte died, by that time it was their last chance to marry and have heirs. One reason that they married too after Charlotte's death I thought was because people like Victoria's father and the future William IV were massively in debt, and they believed that if they married they'd get more money to pay off their debts.

That is a given but I thought we were discussing whether they would have rushed into marriage if Charlotte's son had survived even though she died and I don't see that they would have because there had been no need while she was alive so why should that change when there was still an heir - just a grandchild instead of a child of the eldest son.

Originally Posted by hennybenny

This is an interesting statement. I just finished reading Charlotte & Leopold: The True Story of The Original People's Princess by James Chambers. The way he presents the information, when Charlotte agreed to marry Leopold, she was basically settling for him, as she saw marriage as her only way out of her controlled, isolated life. Her first choice for a husband had been, in fact, Prince August (of Prussia, I think). She had only met Leopold once in person before she agreed to marry him, but it wasn't until after they were engaged and spent some time together that they really fell in love. If this really is a true representation of the way it happened, I wouldn't call it a love match in the same vein as V & A.

A love match can come about after the first meeting. Victoria falling in love on first sight is rather rare whereas many people fall in love after getting to know each other.

My mother knew the instant she meet my father that he was the one for her. He didn't acknowledge love for Mum for a couple of years. However, there marriage most certainly was a love match for over 50 years.

[iowabelle]

My guess is that most of the royal dukes were happy in their domestic arrangements. As long as Charlotte was alive, they didn't seem to feel compelled to marry. Once Charlotte had died, there were advantages to being the father of the next generation.