The Royal Forums

The Royal Forums (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/)
-   Royal Life and Lifestyle (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f161/)
-   -   Most Children In Shortest Time (http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums/f161/most-children-in-shortest-time-31546.html)

Meraude 07-19-2011 05:35 PM

Most Children In Shortest Time
 
Which royal ladies have given birth to several children born within a short period of time? The Swedish queen Josefina of Leuchtenberg, married to Oscar I, had five children between May 1826 and August 1831, that is gave birth to five childen in 63 months, all survived.

MAfan 07-19-2011 05:51 PM

The first one who comes to my mind is Holy Roman Empress Maria Luisa (1745-1792), wife of Emperor Leopold II; they married in 1765, and in 8 years between 1767 and 1774 they became parents of 8 children, one for each year.
They had a total of 16 children born between 1767 and 1788.

nascarlucy 07-19-2011 06:45 PM

I can't think of any royal in modern times (second half of the 20th century) or now whose had 5 to 6 children within a short period (6 to 8 years for example). If they do have 5 or 6 children, they seemed to be spread apart. Having that many children at such a short time is very hard on a woman's body. I knew one woman who was pregnant 8 times in 10 years (she had 6 children and 2 miscarriages). She said it took a toll on her body.

Biri 07-20-2011 04:56 AM

And I remember one: it's Princess Diane of Wurtemberg, nee d'Orleans. She had her five children between 1 June 1961 (first child, Friedrich was born then) and 1 December 1965 (birth of her fifth child Michael); only last one Fleur came to the world after a big break. (4 November 1977).

And first wife of Duke Robert I of Parma, (Princess Maria Pia of Bourbon-Two Siccillies) - tragedy!
She gave birth early year! 12 times!
It had to ruin her health and contribute to her untimely death. Her organism simply didn't endure...

prudence12 07-25-2011 08:25 PM

she's really prolific. Very good for a kingdom to flourish.

Meraude 07-26-2011 02:38 AM

When speaking about prolific, queen Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz, wife of king George III of the United Kingdom, gave birth to 15 surviving childen in 21 years.

PrincessKaimi 07-28-2011 12:05 AM

I don't see much relationship between how many children a royal woman has and the overall flourishing of a kingdom.

ilovemonaco 07-28-2011 12:34 PM

Maria Theresa...

Rice 01-19-2013 01:48 PM

Queen paola had 3 in 3.5 years

Daphoenyx 01-19-2013 07:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PrincessKaimi (Post 1293274)
I don't see much relationship between how many children a royal woman has and the overall flourishing of a kingdom.

I totally agree with you!

BrazilianEmpire 03-27-2013 01:24 PM

Empress Leopoldina of Brazil had seven children between April 4, 1819, and December 2, 1825. Seven children in six years and a half.

Empress Teresa Cristina of Brazil had four children between February 23, 1845, and July 19, 1848. Four children in three years and a half.

Princess Leopoldina of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (neé Princess of Brazil) had four sons between May 19, 1866, and September 15, 1870. Four sons in four years and a half.

Princess Maria Elizabeth of Brazil had twelve children between June 6, 1938, and July 14, 1959. Twelve children in 21 years (the last pregnancy was with twins).

Nice Nofret 03-27-2013 02:12 PM

Poor things .... very sad indeed.

BrazilianEmpire 03-27-2013 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nice Nofret (Post 1532860)
Poor things .... very sad indeed.

What's very sad?

Nice Nofret 03-27-2013 02:50 PM

That this poor women had to have so many children in such a short time - very unhealthy for the mother.

BrazilianEmpire 03-27-2013 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nice Nofret (Post 1532878)
That this poor women had to have so many children in such a short time - very unhealthy for the mother.

Well, that was very common by that time.

Even in first half and early second half of the XX century, Brazilian women tended to have lots of children in a short period of time.

My father is one of eight children, born between 1953 and 1964.

Iluvbertie 03-27-2013 04:09 PM

Queen Victoria, we all know, had 9 children but the first 4 were certainly born quickly - 3 years and 9 months from Vicky to Alfie.

21st November, 1840 - Victoria and Alfred #4 born 6th August, 1844

My sister-in-law's mother in the 1950s and 1960s had 8 in 13 years and she is doing very well turning 80 next month.

BrazilianEmpire 03-27-2013 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Iluvbertie (Post 1532896)
Queen Victoria, we all know, had 9 children but the first 4 were certainly born quickly - 3 years and 9 months from Vicky to Alfie.

21st November, 1840 - Victoria and Alfred #4 born 6th August, 1844

My sister-in-law's mother in the 1950s and 1960s had 8 in 13 years and she is doing very well turning 80 next month.

Just like my grandmother, who had eight children in 11 years. Granny will turn 88 in August.

sarahedwards2 03-27-2013 05:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrazilianEmpire

Just like my grandmother, who has eight children in 11 years. Granny will turn 88 in August.

My maternal grandmother was born in October 1917 as the youngest of four; the first one was born in 1913. As for my dad's side, his mom was born in December of 1922 and was the 9th of 11 (7 girls and 4 boys); her oldest sister was 15 when she was born. My grandma's younger sister was born in 1924 and her brother in 1925. She was very close to her sister; they got married, had their kids and even died around the same time as each other.

Lady Kathleen 03-27-2013 05:03 PM

Queen Victoria's granddaughter, Princess Margarete of Prussia, had four children in three years (two were twins). She had a second set of twins later on.

Empress Zita of Austria had eight children in less than ten years. Her husband died before the youngest child was born.

BrazilianEmpire 03-27-2013 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lady Kathleen (Post 1532930)
Queen Victoria's granddaughter, Princess Margarete of Prussia, had four children in three years (two were twins). She had a second set of twins later on.

Empress Zita of Austria had eight children in less than ten years. Her husband died before the youngest child was born.

And all these ladies lived long.

Meraude 03-27-2013 05:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrazilianEmpire (Post 1532837)
Empress Leopoldina of Brazil had seven children between April 4, 1819, and December 2, 1825. Seven children in six years and a half. Died in December 1826 after a miscarriage at the age of 29.

Empress Teresa Cristina of Brazil had four children between February 23, 1845, and July 19, 1848. Four children in three years and a half.

Princess Leopoldina of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha (neé Princess of Brazil) had four sons between May 19, 1866, and September 15, 1870. Four sons in four years and a half. Died in typhoid fever in February 1871 at the age of 23.

Princess Maria Elizabeth of Brazil had twelve children between June 6, 1938, and July 14, 1959. Twelve children in 21 years (the last pregnancy was with twins).

Several pregnancies in a short period of time can be dangerous to the life of the mother.

BrazilianEmpire 03-27-2013 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Meraude (Post 1532936)
Several pregnancies in a short period of time can be dangerous to the life of the mother.

In fact, Empress Leopoldina's miscarriage was due a fall from the stairs of the Imperial Palace.

And which's the relation between typhoid fever and pregnancy?

Lady Kathleen 03-27-2013 05:18 PM

Princess Maria Pia of Bourbon-Two Sicilies (wife of Robert I, Duke of Parma) had twelve children in twelve years, and died in childbirth. Robert then then married Infanta Maria Antonia of Portugal and had twelve more children, including the future Empress Zita.

BrazilianEmpire 03-27-2013 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lady Kathleen (Post 1532941)
Princess Maria Pia of Bourbon-Two Sicilies (wife of Robert I, Duke of Parma) had twelve children in twelve years, and died in childbirth. Robert then then married Infanta Maria Antonia of Portugal and had twelve more children, including the future Empress Zita.

And Princess Maria Ana died at age of 96. Just like Princess Maria Elizabeth of Brazil, she also had twelve children and died at the age of 96.

Having a big number of pregnancies don't mean that a woman will die at childbirth.

Meraude 03-27-2013 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrazilianEmpire (Post 1532939)
And which's the relation between typhoid fever and pregnancy?

Many pregnancies in a short time weakens the body, and the stronger/healthier a person is, the better are their chances to survive an infection.
Quote:

Originally Posted by BrazilianEmpire (Post 1532945)
And Princess Maria Ana died at age of 96. Just like Princess Maria Elizabeth of Brazil, she also had twelve children and died at the age of 96.

Having a big number of pregnancies don't mean that a woman will die at childbirth.

It all depends on how robust/healthy a woman was, if she suffered from other health issues too, even one pregnancy could be detrimental to her health. For a long time in human history pregnancy and childbirth have been a major cause of ill-health and death among women, regardless of their social status, and still is in some parts of the world.

Lady Kathleen 03-27-2013 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrazilianEmpire (Post 1532945)

And Princess Maria Ana died at age of 96. Just like Princess Maria Elizabeth of Brazil, she also had twelve children and died at the age of 96.

Having a big number of pregnancies don't mean that a woman will die at childbirth.

I didn't say it did.

BrazilianEmpire 03-27-2013 05:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Meraude (Post 1532947)
Many pregnancies in a short time weakens the body, and the stronger/healthier a person is, the better are their chances to survive an infection.

It all depends on how robust/healthy a woman was, if she suffered from other health issues too, even one pregnancy could be detrimental to her health. For a long time in human history pregnancy and childbirth have been a major cause of ill-health and death among women, regardless of their social status, and still is in some parts of the world.

Well, having lots of children in a short period of time was pretty common by that time.

Some women died at childbirth, others had a dozen of children and lived to be 80 or 90 years old.

And you're right. It all depends robust/healthy a woman is.

sarahedwards2 03-27-2013 06:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lady Kathleen
Queen Victoria's granddaughter, Princess Margarete of Prussia, had four children in three years (two were twins). She had a second set of twins later on.

My brother's friend Amy has a twin sister, and their older brother and sister are also twins.

BrazilianEmpire 03-27-2013 06:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sarahedwards2 (Post 1532970)
My brother's friend Amy has a twin sister, and their older brother and sister are also twins.

Princess Maria Elizabeth of Brazil had twin daughters two months shy from her 45th birthday.

Princesses Maria Teresa and Maria Gabriela of Orleans-Braganza (neé Princesses of Brazil).

Mariel 03-27-2013 11:56 PM

My great grandma had 14 sons and no daughters. The last two were twins born at 52.
The Irish started late in those days. Every generation known to me had 10-14 children, but my grandma was very insistent that her 6 living children have few children, so there were only 3 of us in the next generation, out of the 6. And now I have no sibling, no cousin who is not incommunicado in Alaska, no niece, no nephew. On the other side of my family my aunts died of Porphyria and had no children. So you can have a big big big family and it can dwindle to nothing, just as GeorgeIII's family dwindled to only Queen Victoria and I think one other female heiress. I guess my relatives are somewhere out there, probably half the Irish in America. They dropped babies like going out for brunch.

sarahedwards2 03-28-2013 12:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mariel
My great grandma had 14 sons and no daughters. The last two were twins born at 52.
The Irish started late in those days. Every generation known to me had 10-14 children, but my grandma was very insistent that her 6 living children have few children, so there were only 3 of us in the next generation, out of the 6. And now I have no sibling, no cousin who is not incommunicado in Alaska, no niece, no nephew. On the other side of my family my aunts died of Porphyria and had no children. So you can have a big big big family and it can dwindle to nothing, just as GeorgeIII's family dwindled to only Queen Victoria and I think one other female heiress. I guess my relatives are somewhere out there, probably half the Irish in America. They dropped babies like going out for brunch.

Wow, 52! That's how old my dad's maternal grandfather was when their last (and 11th) was born. My dad's paternal grandfather was 59 (yes, 59!) when my grandpa was born. He died when my grandpa was 21. My grandpa's mother was 46 when he was born, and he had one sister 4 years older. My maternal grandmother was 34, almost 35 when my mom was born (my maternal grandfather was 42) and 41 when my uncle was born (the baby of 6 kids.) My dad's parents were 35 when their youngest son of 5 children was born (only 1 was a girl), when my dad was almost 6. And my mom was 43 when my youngest brother was born; who's now 17. My parents are both turning 61 this year.

Iluvbertie 03-28-2013 02:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mariel (Post 1533081)
My great grandma had 14 sons and no daughters. The last two were twins born at 52.
The Irish started late in those days. Every generation known to me had 10-14 children, but my grandma was very insistent that her 6 living children have few children, so there were only 3 of us in the next generation, out of the 6. And now I have no sibling, no cousin who is not incommunicado in Alaska, no niece, no nephew. On the other side of my family my aunts died of Porphyria and had no children. So you can have a big big big family and it can dwindle to nothing, just as GeorgeIII's family dwindled to only Queen Victoria and I think one other female heiress. I guess my relatives are somewhere out there, probably half the Irish in America. They dropped babies like going out for brunch.


George III had a number of legitimate descendents as a number of his younger sons had children about the same time as Victoria. The most senior of which is the Hanover line from George III's fifth son - The Duke of Cumberland through his son, George. The Duke of Cambridge also had a son, George and daughters Augusta and Mary Adelaide. This list doesn't include those that died without issue.

Queen Mary was the child of Mary Adelaide while Ernest of Hanover is a direct descendent of the Duke of Cumberland.

Ish 03-28-2013 02:51 AM

^^^ George III also had a number of illegitimate descendants: his third son, William IV, had 10 illegitimate children, the FitzClarences, and his sixth son had 2, the d'Estes. Victoria really just came to the throne through a series of bad luck; George III's first son's only child died, his second son had no children, and his third son had no legitimate children - Victoria the only child to the fourth son. The fifth and seventh sons also had legitimate children. In fact, when it comes down to it only 1 of George's surviving sons didn't have any children, although none of his 6 surviving daughters had any (only 3 of them married, as opposed to all 7 of his sons entering into some sort of marriage with at least one woman).

Countessmeout 03-28-2013 03:45 AM

Of his 13 children to reach adulthood, only 4 sons had legitamite chilldren, a fifth had kids from an invalid marriage. Of course, none of his daughters had kids, 3 didn't even marry.

George: had Charlotte
Edward: had Victoria

Ernst: had one son George. Three royal families can directly trace through him. Of course the main one would be EA, Princess Caroline's husband, the current Prince of Hannover. But The Greek and Spanish royal families as well. Sofia and Constantine's mother Frederica was born a princess of Hannover, and is the great-great granddaughter of George III's son Ernst.

Adolphus- his title and male line died out legitamitely with his only son George who never married. He had three illegitamite children, George who had three kids but no grandkids, Adolphus had one daughter who gave him grandchildren, and a third who never wed. But Adolphus had two daughters. Princess Augusta married the Duke of Mecklenberg-Strelitz, and her line continues through her daughters. Mary Adelaide, married the Duke of Tech and her daughter Mary was Queen of Great Britain. She also has descendents from two sons.

Augutus had two children from his invalid marriage, none from his valid. His son is one of the first reporter sufferers of MS, and never had children. His daughter wed, but she had no kids either.

BrazilianEmpire 03-28-2013 09:37 AM

My paternal grandfather was 33 when he married my grandmother, who was 24. He was 37 at the birth of their first child, my grandmother was 28. When the youngest child was born, he was 48, and she was 39. They had seven girls and one boy (my father, of course).

Seven of their children had children. I'm the youngest of twelve cousins.

Prince Pedro Henrique of Brazil was 28 when he married Princess Maria Elizabeth of Bavaria, who was 23. He was 29 when their first child, Prince Luiz, was born, and Princess Maria Elizabeth was 24. When their youngest daughters (twins) was born, he was 50 and she was 45.

Between them, their twelve children produced 29 grandchildren. Only Princes Luiz and Bertrand, and Princesses Isabel and Maria Gabriela are childless.

Mariel 03-28-2013 12:26 PM

Thanks for the information on the other legitimate descendants of George III. I knew there were many illegitimate descendants. Probably Edward had other children besides Victoria, but the knowledge of them was suppressed.

BrazilianEmpire 03-28-2013 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mariel (Post 1533233)
Thanks for the information on the other legitimate descendants of George III. I knew there were many illegitimate descendants. Probably Edward had other children besides Victoria, but the knowledge of them was suppressed.

I don't think the Duke of Kent had children with his mistress, none of King George III's sons were very discreet regarding their illegitimate children.

Countessmeout 03-28-2013 12:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mariel (Post 1533233)
Thanks for the information on the other legitimate descendants of George III. I knew there were many illegitimate descendants. Probably Edward had other children besides Victoria, but the knowledge of them was suppressed.


Edward has at least two children from before he married. A daughter Adelaide born in 1789, her mother died giving birth to her. And a son Edward, who married but had no kids.He had an 18 year relationship wit Thérèse-Bernardine Montgenet, who accompanied him until his marriage. There is no recognized children, but some families claim descendence from them.

Ish 03-28-2013 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrazilianEmpire (Post 1533240)

I don't think the Duke of Kent had children with his mistress, none of King George III's sons were very discreet regarding their illegitimate children.

It's said that he had two children by mistresses, actually.

1. Adelaide Victoria Auguste Dubus (1789-around 1832) by his mistress Adelaide Dubus
2. Edward Schenker Scheener (1789-1853) by his mistress Anne Gabrielle Alexadrine Moré

His longtime mistress was Madam de Saint-Laurent, also known as Julie de St Laurent or Therese-Bsrnadine Montgenet, and was with him from 1790 until 1818 when he got married. There is no evidence that they had children.

Information about Edward's illegitimate children is said to have been suppressed during the reign of Victoria, who didn't take kindly to illegitimacy. It could simply be that Edward didn't actually father these children and they're just an urban legend of sorts, or that he didn't acknowledge them in his life time. The children born to his brothers were born to long term mistresses - women that they would have likely married legally had they been allowed to. William IV was with Dorothea Jordan for 20 years, the Duke of Sussex married both his mistresses in contravention to the Royal Marriage Act. It makes sense that children born through these unions would have been acknowledged, while children born through more general liaisons with the Duke of Kent wouldn't have been.

Countessmeout 03-28-2013 10:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ish (Post 1533245)
It's said that he had two children by mistresses, actually.

1. Adelaide Victoria Auguste Dubus (1789-around 1832) by his mistress Adelaide Dubus
2. Edward Schenker Scheener (1789-1853) by his mistress Anne Gabrielle Alexadrine Moré

His longtime mistress was Madam de Saint-Laurent, also known as Julie de St Laurent or Therese-Bsrnadine Montgenet, and was with him from 1790 until 1818 when he got married. There is no evidence that they had children.

Information about Edward's illegitimate children is said to have been suppressed during the reign of Victoria, who didn't take kindly to illegitimacy. It could simply be that Edward didn't actually father these children and they're just an urban legend of sorts, or that he didn't acknowledge them in his life time. The children born to his brothers were born to long term mistresses - women that they would have likely married legally had they been allowed to. William IV was with Dorothea Jordan for 20 years, the Duke of Sussex married both his mistresses in contravention to the Royal Marriage Act. It makes sense that children born through these unions would have been acknowledged, while children born through more general liaisons with the Duke of Kent wouldn't have been.

I am surprised, I don't think Victoria had any real issue with her Uncle's marriages or children born from them. The Duke of Sussex's second wife was created Duchess of Inverness in her own right. She had been unable to sit with the Duke at royal functions, due to her lower status, so Victoria has her raised to a Duchesss in her own right. If they had children, the title could have passed to them. So it seems at least the sake for her Uncle, Victoria could over look that. Her opinion on her father's children from other women may be a whole new issue.

Mariel 03-28-2013 11:04 PM

If Julie de Laurent was the mistress of Edward, that too was a long-term relationship. I forget how many years past twenty it is said to have lasted. Edward and Julie lived outside England during most of that time, as he was in military service and posted abroad. He is said to have had a child with Julie while in Canada, and given the boy to be raised by Robert Woods, his employee, and the boy was also named Robert Woods. I read this in the couple of books on the subject, some years ago, and the Mormons have good records, easily available at my local Mormon church, where I spent hours looking at old records. The books stated that Queen Victoria did not wish knowledge of her father's other children to be known, and suppressed this. Whether or not this is true or a rumor, who of us can tell?
The Mormon records showed that Robert Woods of Kent (a person of the time period) married Lady Charlotte Grey, daughter of the well known parliamentarian, Earl Grey, for whom the tea "Earl Grey" is named (one of my favorite teas).
Edward and Julie are thought to have had more children born in other spots than Canada. Then they lived for a while in England but found it expensive and retired to Belgium, where it was less expensive, but he was summoned to England to try for an heir to the throne, and left his longtime mistress, who disappeared from history at this point. He only lived about a year and a half after marrying Victoria's mother; perhaps he was heartbroken? We cannot know.

I am a descendant of the Woods family of Kent so that's why I was looking at the genealogy records, wondering if I might be a descendant of Robert Woods. But the time period is not quite right, and the name Robert Woods occurs a thousand times in the records, so I gave up on this as futile.

Julie's mother was a Colonna.

NGalitzine 03-28-2013 11:51 PM

There has never been any proof of Edward having children with Julie or a good reason given to hide tham if he did since his brothers were quite open about their illegitimate children. I think the whole Woods story is a family fantasy/legend rather like today people claim to be descended from illegitimate children of assorted royal or noble families or early in the last century the long lost children of the Tsar. Makes a nice family story but doesnt hold up.

Not exactly sure what Edward and Julie have to do with having the most children in a short period of time though.

Mariel 03-29-2013 01:59 AM

No NGalatzine, the Woods story was not MY family's story. They never heard any of this, never mentioned it anyway, so it isn't a fantasy they had. Someone else's fantasy if it is one.
Well, we just got off on the many children of George III, and since he had lots more illegitimate grandchildren than legitimate, it was a natural development of the theme.
It IS true, however, that the story of his many children (15, I think) who had a very small number of children themselves is interesting. I read a book not long ago on the "Daughters of George III" and their life was mostly pain. They really didn't have opportunities to marry their "equals" and others were not allowed. Some of them were chronically sick. One married a prince but lost her only child. One of them probably had an illegitimate child who was treated well by the family, and known to the whole family. How many of them inherited George's illness? Not discussed at all in this book,
but probably some of them. It is amazing how many children he and Charlotte produced, that is a fact. All sources say they were a loving couple, although she was very distressed in later years by his attacks of illness.

Ish 03-29-2013 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mariel (Post 1533406)
If Julie de Laurent was the mistress of Edward, that too was a long-term relationship. I forget how many years past twenty it is said to have lasted. Edward and Julie lived outside England during most of that time, as he was in military service and posted abroad. He is said to have had a child with Julie while in Canada, and given the boy to be raised by Robert Woods, his employee, and the boy was also named Robert Woods. I read this in the couple of books on the subject, some years ago, and the Mormons have good records, easily available at my local Mormon church, where I spent hours looking at old records. The books stated that Queen Victoria did not wish knowledge of her father's other children to be known, and suppressed this. Whether or not this is true or a rumor, who of us can tell?
The Mormon records showed that Robert Woods of Kent (a person of the time period) married Lady Charlotte Grey, daughter of the well known parliamentarian, Earl Grey, for whom the tea "Earl Grey" is named (one of my favorite teas).
Edward and Julie are thought to have had more children born in other spots than Canada. Then they lived for a while in England but found it expensive and retired to Belgium, where it was less expensive, but he was summoned to England to try for an heir to the throne, and left his longtime mistress, who disappeared from history at this point. He only lived about a year and a half after marrying Victoria's mother; perhaps he was heartbroken? We cannot know.

I am a descendant of the Woods family of Kent so that's why I was looking at the genealogy records, wondering if I might be a descendant of Robert Woods. But the time period is not quite right, and the name Robert Woods occurs a thousand times in the records, so I gave up on this as futile.

Julie's mother was a Colonna.

This story doesn't add up and in actuality isn't correct - even if we allow for the possibility of Robert Woods having been Edward's child.

To start, the Mormons may keep really good records, but the church wasn't founded until 1820 so I would question the validity of any records they have that predate then.

To continue, as per the peerage.com, Charles Grey, 2nd Earl Grey did not have a daughter named Charlotte. Nor did any of the 6 daughters he did have marry someone named Robert Woods. Given as the peerage does make note of Charles Grey's illegitimate daughter, I would think that had he had a child named Charlotte it would be noted.

Robert Woods, had he been Edward's child, would not have been "of Kent" owing to his illegitimacy. We see this in the naming schemes used by the other illegitimate children of Princes at the time; William's children were the FitzClarences, Augustus' children were the d'Estes. There is no "of x" with illegitimate children unless they're given titles themselves or marry someone who holds titles.

There is also no reason to believe that the birth of an illegitimate child would have been covered up in the first place - and if Robert Woods was in fact Edward's child that's what happened, not retroactively as is often implied. Robert Woods, Jr is reported to have been born in Quebec in 1871 to Robert Woods, Sr, who had been a servant who accompanied Edward to Canada. Woods, Jr later married the daughter of a military clerk, Charlotte Gray, with whom he had 11 children, before dying in 1847. Consequently, he was born 28 years before Victoria, with absolutely no reason to take measures to cover up the origins of his birth. The FitzClarences and d'Estes were both born around this time without any cover up, so there's no reason to think that Edward's child would have been covered up at this point either, 28 years before the birth of his legitimate daughter, and 46 years before she came to the throne.

It should also be noted that the peerage does recognize the birth of one illegitimate child to Edward, Adelaide Victoria Augusta Dubus, born in 1789 and died in 1790. That seems more like the child whose existence Victoria would have hidden, had she even known about it in the first place.

It's also commonly accepted that Edward died of pneumonia and not a broken heart.

Mariel 03-29-2013 05:41 PM

Easy to see how things get falsified, Ish. There are no really good records of Julie de Laurent, the books on her could be fiction. It does not matter to me, as I seem to be not related to Julie and Edward.

However, the Mormons do keep a data base going back before the 19th century. It goes back very far in some cases. They keep putting new information in all the time, and almost every Mormon church has a genealogy room with links to headquarters in Salt Lake City. They take it seriously because they want to baptize every antecedent by proxy. I believe I was baptized by proxy by one of my students who liked me and wanted me to have the benefits of Mormon baptism, even though I was not a Mormon.
We have genealogy rooms at both the church near me and the one in the other part of town, usually staffed with several volunteers to help those researching. They probably have the best genealogy data base in the world, covering as many countries as possible.

Grandma828 03-29-2013 07:48 PM

The Mormons have traveled the world, making copies of all the church and civil records they can find. It is possible to find baptism records back a long way, depending on what was recorded in a particular country. To be sure, you always start with yourself and work backwards. Most church records list birth date, baptism date, parents and sponsors. If you search, make sure you have the correct Mother and Father, as there were many men with the same name, but had different wives. It is time consuming, but can be done. Clues can be taken from place of birth, names of sponsors (usually relatives). Have fun.

Mimi1984 06-28-2015 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MAfan (Post 1289053)
The first one who comes to my mind is Holy Roman Empress Maria Luisa (1745-1792), wife of Emperor Leopold II; they married in 1765, and in 8 years between 1767 and 1774 they became parents of 8 children, one for each year.
They had a total of 16 children born between 1767 and 1788.

2 of them died in childhood, and 2 other in there early years, but the other 10 became very old.

Albrecht (1773-1774)

Maximilian (1774-1778)

Maria Amalia (1780-1798)

Leopold Alexander (1772-1795, died at the age of 23)

Mimi1984 06-28-2015 02:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Countessmeout (Post 1533241)
Edward has at least two children from before he married. A daughter Adelaide born in 1789, her mother died giving birth to her. And a son Edward, who married but had no kids.He had an 18 year relationship wit Thérèse-Bernardine Montgenet, who accompanied him until his marriage. There is no recognized children, but some families claim descendence from them.

Realy ? I only know, that Victorie, Victorias mother had two children (1 son, 1 daughter) from her first marriage and was a widow in 1817.

Victorie outlived her two husbands and died in 1861. (was born in 1786).

Mimi1984 07-31-2015 09:51 AM

Maria Theresia (1717-1780) was married to Franz Stephan (1708-1765) , 1736-1765 and hat 16 children with him.

The first child Maria Elisabeth (I.) (1737-1740) and the last child Maximilian Franz (1756-1801).

16 children in 19 1/2 years.

As far as I know, Maria Theresia never had a misscarriage.

Maria Karolina (I.) (1740-1741) and Maria Karolina (II.) (1748-1748) died in childhood, Karl Joseph (1745,1761) - 15 years old, Johanna Gabriela (1750-1562) and Maria Josepha (1751-1767) died in his/her early Teens.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:28 PM.

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2018
Jelsoft Enterprises