The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #41  
Old 01-11-2010, 12:33 AM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 15
Please contact me by message if you have any questions
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 01-11-2010, 12:13 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Calgary, Canada
Posts: 237
Hi,

My point of view on all this is:
The Royal Family wanted and needed heirs after Charlotte died, thus the scramble for the Dukes to marry and produce heirs.
Why would they disgard a son (the preferable heir) to advance a girl cousin???
Was this baby boy physically and/or mentally incapacitated?

It just doesn't make sense that William (who kept his 10 illegitimate children) and Adelaide (a good & compassionate lady & mother figure) would cast away a legitimate son...

Larry
__________________

__________________
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 01-11-2010, 02:17 PM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 17,189
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vecchiolarry View Post
Why would they disgard a son (the preferable heir) to advance a girl cousin???
Was this baby boy physically and/or mentally incapacitated?
RoyaltyinNZ has never said that the child was legitimate, that would be why he was (if he existed) cast aside. He could never inherit the throne.
If Adelaide was pregnant and gave birth we would have known about it.
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 01-11-2010, 03:09 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vecchiolarry View Post
Why would they disgard a son (the preferable heir) to advance a girl cousin???
Why would they disregard a son? Like I mentioned in a previous post, they wanted to end their ties with Hannover. I dont know why, but I think it was a money issue. And the only way they could do that, is if a female inherited the throne. Salic Law.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 01-11-2010, 03:11 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by lumutqueen View Post
RoyaltyinNZ has never said that the child was legitimate, that would be why he was (if he existed) cast aside. He could never inherit the throne.
If Adelaide was pregnant and gave birth we would have known about it.
The child would have been legitimate, most certainly.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 01-11-2010, 03:44 PM
Aristocracy
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Calgary, Canada
Posts: 237
Hi,

As has been posted previously, an Act of Parliament could have severed Britain and Hanover ties... No need to cast a poor baby away...

In defence of William and Adelaide -
These people were not monsters, who callously abandoned their child.
William IV has been termed "Silly Billy" and "The Sailor King" but he was a good enough father by 19th century terms and wasn't a bad person.
Queen Adelaide is one of our most exemplary queens, in terms of kindness and fairness and a great example to Victoria and others of what a real gentile lady is/was... She would never give up her son.

Larry
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 01-11-2010, 03:49 PM
Lumutqueen's Avatar
Imperial Majesty
Royal Blogger
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Carlton, York, United Kingdom
Posts: 17,189
Quote:
Originally Posted by royaltyinNZ View Post
The child would have been legitimate, most certainly.

If this so called son was a child of Queen Adelaide and King William it would have been known. Even if it was a stillborn.
Why did they want to cut ties with Hanover, what was the problem?
__________________
We Will Remember Them.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 01-11-2010, 04:31 PM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 15
This is totally just conspiracy theory, but at the time of King William's reign, Britain was in great debt. What if the choice to end ties with Hanover was an idea established by the King or even the government of Hanover, to pay off debts to Britain?

So in simple terms, Hanover said they want to be independent, and in order to do so they will pay England x amount of dollars so that they pay off their debts and in return, England will establish a female as a queen and if any sons (or rightful heirs to the throne) to be born, were to be hidden from the public.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 01-11-2010, 07:16 PM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,669
However this only works if Victoria successfully has a child and with the example of Charlotte before them that wasn't a given and in 1837 after Victoria the next 4 heirs were all male.

It was a risky strategy and really wouldn't hold water for that very reason - what if Victoria had followed Charlotte and died having the Princess Royal and that the baby also died - then the thrones are again combined so back to square one and they knew that the next heir already had a son so it would be generations before the possibility rose again - this just doesn't wash.

That William might have hidden a new illegimate child, so as not to hurt Adelaide's feelings - that is a possibility except that there is no suggestion that he wasn't faithful to Adelaide (any more than he was unfaithful to Mrs Jordon - the mother of his acknowledged 10 illegimate children).

Sorry but this conspiracy has no legs as it is too fraught with the possibility of failure.

Britain was also the leading industrial power of the age and its economy was improving all the time.

If the British government wanted to end the association with Hannover it would simply have had to legislate and say that the British monarch can't also be the monarch of another realm - easy.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 01-11-2010, 08:35 PM
Zonk's Avatar
Administrator
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere in, United States
Posts: 10,367
According to A Royal Affair by Stella Tillyard,
  • For George I, being elector of Hanover generated 700,000 pounds a year. Thus the elector of Hanover was richer than King of Great Britian'
  • according to the author, George I's will (suppressed by George II) was populary believed to have asked for the separation of Britian and Hanover as soon as the existence of two male heirs in one generation made it possible. Thus Frederick, Prince of Wales would have inheritied the British corwn on his father's death, and the Duke of Cumberland that electorate. Although Queen Caroline would have never accepted this. She hated Frederick and wanted Edward to be King.
  • The author assumes that George III did not separate the two upon his accession because he didn't find a suitable candidiate for the electorship among his brothers.
Basically there might have been earlier opportunities for the two kingdoms to be separated. But if money was an intial motive, it makes sense why George II didn't separate two but apparently Frederick did want them separated and George III was aware of this. Apparently it ranked low on his list of issues he had the issues with his siblings, some revolution in the colonies and his mental issues to deal with.
__________________
.

Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 01-12-2010, 12:00 AM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 15
I dont know much about George III or Frederick unfortunately. So you are saying that it did make sense that they wanted both Kingdoms separated? Why would they want the two separated?

If you read my earlier posts, I am just trying to put the missing puzzle pieces together based on all the information I have collected from family genealogy/old documents/letters.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 01-12-2010, 01:26 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,669
The first George seems to have wanted them separated as he felt that they should develop separately and not be tied to each other but having only one son was unable to have that happen and then his son ignored that idea. These events were 100 years before William became King.

George III had issues with his brothers and didn't wish to give up his title as King of Hannover not did he think there was any need to consider passing the throne of Hannover to his second son - which wouldn't have made any difference as second son didn't have any children and died in 1828. Had he lived another couple of years he would have succeeded George IV.

You may be looking for missing pieces but you are not going to find them in a legitimate son to William IV who was hidden to allow the separation of the thrones as there was no certainty that Victoria would successfully have a child who lived. (We know that she had 9 but in 1837 they had a history over the previous 20 or so years of more babies dying than living and one mother dying in childbirth - that is just in the royal family).
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 01-12-2010, 01:49 AM
Commoner
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 15
What does Victoria having a child have to do with anything?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 01-12-2010, 02:38 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,669
Quote:
Originally Posted by royaltyinNZ View Post
What does Victoria having a child have to do with anything?
Your conspiracy is based on hiding a son to have Victoria on the throne to separate the thrones.

However, Victoria's heir from 1837 - 1840 was her uncle, who also had a son so if anything happened to Victoria while having a child then the whole conspiracy fails as they are back with combined thrones.

The Duke of Cumberland - who became King of Hannover - also wanted to be King of Britain and would have been delighted to have both crowns.

Had Victoria died in childbirth and the child with her then the King of Hannover is again the King of Britian and thus your conspiracy about hiding a son to separate the thrones is totally flawed.

I will try to put it more simply:

During William's reign the line of succession was:

Victoria
Duke of Cumberland
George of Cumberland
Duke of Cambridge
George of Cambridge
Daughters of Duke of Cambridge.

So for your conspiracy to work they had to know when this supposed son was born that Victoria would successfully have a child to separate the thrones. Given the high rate of still births and deaths in childbirth that is not a given, for any woman at that time.

For the first three and a half years of Victoria's reign the line of succession was:

King of Hannover (Duke of Cumberland)
Prince George of Cumberland
Duke of Cambridge
George of Cambridge

For these years the next in line after Victoria were all male and would have re-united the two thrones again.

The only way to stop the re-unification of the thrones, assuming your conspiracy is right and I don't for one moment believe it, was for Victoria to have a child and that wasn't a given.

Far easier, to pass legislation, which George I would have supported by no later Hannoverian King would do.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 01-24-2010, 05:05 AM
RoyalistRiley's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 502
[QUOTE=Iluvbertie;1039351]The first George seems to have wanted them separated as he felt that they should develop separately and not be tied to each other but having only one son was unable to have that happen and then his son ignored that idea. These events were 100 years before William became King.QUOTE]

William III continued as Stadholder of the Netherlands while he was King, and it maintained a seperate way of life, so I wonder why King George felt that way?
__________________
God Save the Queen! Advance Australia Fair!
"Life is a game in which the player must appear ridiculous" - The Dowager Countess of Grantham, Downton Abbey
http://twitter.com/FutureSirRiley
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 01-24-2010, 05:21 AM
Iluvbertie's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Bathurst, Australia
Posts: 8,669
I think a lot of it was tied to seeing them as two separate entities rather than as one and therefore having separate monarchs was the way to go. He was totally German in outlook as well whereas his descendents became increasingly British in outlook.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 04-15-2011, 08:58 PM
Grandduchess24's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Cambridge, United States
Posts: 1,318
King Edward VIII & Future Queens

Edward being the eldest son of king George V I am sure had tons of monarchs who proposed their daughters to marry him...and if he chose one what would the royal family be like now?!
__________________
" An ugly baby is a very nasty object, and the prettiest is frightful when undressed."
- Queen Victoria
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 04-16-2011, 03:49 AM
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: brisbane, Australia
Posts: 510
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandduchess24 View Post
Edward being the eldest son of king George V I am sure had tons of monarchs who proposed their daughters to marry him...and if he chose one what would the royal family be like now?!
One proposed match was between him and one of the daughters of the Russian Tsar, not sure which one. One highly likely result of such a match could have been that the current monarch would be a haomophiliac.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 04-18-2011, 07:39 PM
Grandduchess24's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Cambridge, United States
Posts: 1,318
You must be taking about grand duchess Olga nikolaievna (1895-1918) I knew that but she was the one who said she wanted to marry a russian and stay in Russia.
__________________
" An ugly baby is a very nasty object, and the prettiest is frightful when undressed."
- Queen Victoria
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 04-18-2011, 07:40 PM
Grandduchess24's Avatar
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Cambridge, United States
Posts: 1,318
[QUOTE="Grandduchess24"]You must be taking about grand duchess Olga nikolaievna (1895-1918) I knew that but she was the one who said she wanted to marry a russian and stay in Russia.Any others though ?
__________________

__________________
" An ugly baby is a very nasty object, and the prettiest is frightful when undressed."
- Queen Victoria
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
british monarchy, history


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off





Popular Tags
abdication belgium birth carl philip charlene chris o'neill crown prince frederik crown prince haakon crown princess mary crown princess mette-marit crown princess victoria current events fashion germany grand duchess maria teresa grand duke henri hohenzollern infanta leonor infanta sofia jewellery jordan king carl xvi gustav king felipe king felipe vi king harald king juan carlos king philippe king willem-alexander letizia luxembourg nobility official visit ottoman pregnancy president hollande prince albert prince albert ii prince carl philip prince daniel prince floris prince maurits prince pieter-christiaan princess aimee princess alexia (2005 -) princess anita princess astrid princess beatrix princess charlene princess claire princess mabel princess madeleine princess margriet princess mary queen anne-marie queen letizia queen mathilde queen maxima queen paola queen silvia royal royal fashion russia sofia hellqvist spain state visit stockholm sweden the hague visit wedding



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:53 PM.

Social Knowledge Networks

eXTReMe Tracker
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014
Jelsoft Enterprises

Royal News Delivered to your Email!

You can get the latest Royal News right in your inbox.

unsusbcribe at anytime with one click

Close [X]