The Royal Forums

The Royal Forums (
-   British Royal History (
-   -   George III (1738-1820) and Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz (1744-1818) (

Furienna 10-18-2011 05:33 AM

George IV was secretly married to a non-royal woman for a while though, wasn't he?

And even though it might not be 100 % historically correct, I have to see that movie some day,

Tiberivs 10-18-2011 03:53 PM


Originally Posted by Furienna (Post 1327282)
George IV was secretly married to a non-royal woman for a while though, wasn't he?

And even though it might not be 100 % historically correct, I have to see that movie some day,

Yes, he married a Roman-Catholic Irishwoman but since he didn't receive the king consent the marriage were invalid.

Furienna 10-20-2011 02:08 PM

And through a quick google search, I found out her name: Maria Fitzherbert.

Well, whether it was vaild or not, I suppose it was that marriage, that the movie referred to.

DWC 11-20-2011 02:30 PM

As this year marked the 250th anniversary of the marriage and coronation of Queen Charlotte a number of events were held throughout the year in her birthplace of Mirow in Mecklenburg. 'Queen Charlotte's Year' came to an end this past Thursday on the anniversary of her death with a Festival of Lights in Mirow.

Mirow Festival of Lights - House of Mecklenburg-Strelitz -

rodomjr 04-19-2012 04:16 PM

Hi! Thank you for post this informative and one day in near future we, deaf/hard of hearing group, plan to travel to Europe include my favorite England King George Hanover III's wife, Queen Sophia Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz's native northwest German! ;) Roosevelt D. Odom Jr.


Originally Posted by DWC (Post 1339243)
As this year marked the 250th anniversary of the marriage and coronation of Queen Charlotte a number of events were held throughout the year in her birthplace of Mirow in Mecklenburg. 'Queen Charlotte's Year' came to an end this past Thursday on the anniversary of her death with a Festival of Lights in Mirow.

Mirow Festival of Lights - House of Mecklenburg-Strelitz -

"History is a lie agreed upon" Napoleon Bonaparte

rodomjr 04-19-2012 04:55 PM

Hi! Withering Havoverrians, yes you're correct about people's point of view tend to pre-judge on our facial/physical appearance before our content to character! I called "human nature" and it means some of them are/were so mean to judge us before get know us! :ohmy: ...As deaf African/European/Native-American I choose to be identify as "Deaf Multiracial-American" because it is illegal to slap label us due to Loving vs Virginia case in Superior Court in 1967 (Loving v. Virginia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). I am current working on which it will be ready within at least 90 days and I invented a word: Queen Sophia Charlotte of Mecklenbury-Strelitz "Monkey-Faced" Syndrome! :hmm: Roosevelt D. Odom Jr.

Withering Hanoverians
Originally Posted by rodomjr
.I want to know why they called my favorite Queen Charlotte as "monkey-faced"??? To me her looks is very fine


Originally Posted by Warren (Post 269634)
Welcome to TRF rodomjr.
Our modern Western culture is often accused of being looks and body obsessed, but those Hanoverians were downright cruel. Even Queen Victoria in her (many) letters would write at length and in great detail of the imperfections and "ugliness" she would perceive in all manner of people's physical appearance. Not even new-born babies escaped her withering eye. Of course this attitude was not confined to the Queen but was mainstream within society at the time.

"History is a lie agreed upon" Napoleon Bonaparte :napoleon:

Dman 10-27-2012 03:03 PM

Queen Charlotte:
Queen Charlotte | FRONTLINE | PBS

J Kendrick 04-15-2013 02:20 PM

George III: Another royal disease fallacy?

15 April 2013 Last updated at 04:22 ET

What was the truth about the madness of George III?

Modern medicine may help us to discover the real reasons behind King George III's erratic behaviour, writes historian Lucy Worsley.
George III is well known in children's history books for being the "mad king who lost America".
In recent years, though, it has become fashionable among historians to put his "madness" down to the physical, genetic blood disorder called porphyria. Its symptoms include aches and pains, as well as blue urine.
The theory formed the basis of a long-running play by Alan Bennett, The Madness of George III, which was later adapted for film starring Nigel Hawthorne in the title role.
However, a new research project based at St George's, University of London, has concluded that George III did actually suffer from mental illness after all.
Using the evidence of thousands of George III's own handwritten letters, Dr Peter Garrard and Dr Vassiliki Rentoumi have been analysing his use of language. They have discovered that during his episodes of illness, his sentences were much longer than when he was well.
A sentence containing 400 words and eight verbs was not unusual. George III, when ill, often repeated himself, and at the same time his vocabulary became much more complex, creative and colourful.
These are features that can be seen today in the writing and speech of patients experiencing the manic phase of psychiatric illnesses such as bipolar disorder.
Mania, or harmful euphoria, is at one end of a spectrum of mood disorders, with sadness, or depression, at the other. George's being in a manic state would also match contemporary descriptions of his illness by witnesses.
They spoke of his "incessant loquacity" and his habit of talking until the foam ran out of his mouth. Sometimes he suffered from convulsions, and his pages had to sit on him to keep him safe on the floor.
The researchers have even thrown doubt on one of the key planks in the case for porphyria, the blue urine. George III's medical records show that the king was given medicine based on gentian. This plant, with its deep blue flowers, is still used today as a mild tonic, but may turn the urine blue.
So maybe it wasn't the king's "madness" that caused his most famous symptom. It could have simply been his medicine.
I interviewed the researchers at St George's for a new documentary series, Fit To Rule: How Royal Illness Changed History.
In this series, I re-examine our kings and queens as individual members of the human race, rather than just as impregnable icons of splendour and power. They suffered many of exactly the same biological and psychological weaknesses as the rest of us - only with rather more serious consequences.
George III's recurring bouts of illness caused him to withdraw from daily business to recuperate out of the public eye at secluded Kew Palace, near Richmond.
Each time he withdrew to Kew, this triggered a crisis - who was to make decisions in his absence?
His son, the Prince of Wales, with whom George III had a terrible relationship, wanted to be appointed regent, and to act as the king in everything but name. But the future George IV was very much associated with the political opposition, and the government was determined to keep him out.
Strikingly, although the crisis caused a good deal of arguing, it was in fact resolved quite easily. This was partly because the king just got better (despite the bizarre and sometimes inhumane treatments given to him by the royal doctors) and partly because he was, by this stage in British history, a constitutional king.
When the Hanoverians had been invited over from Germany in 1714 to take the throne after the failure of the Stuart line, they came at the invitation of Parliament. Parliament therefore held the whip hand over them, and the powers of the monarchy declined.
But despite his illness, George III was a dedicated and diligent king, and won the respect of his politicians. In fact, when his illness drove him off the political scene, they realised how much they needed his calming effect on their squabbles.

It is counter-intuitive to suggest it, but royal health issues can actually strengthen the monarchy, not least by creating sympathy and affection for an afflicted individual.

Garrard also points out how the explanations or diagnoses that we come up with for patients in the past reflect our own current attitudes to sickness and health. One of the reasons that the porphyria argument caught on is because it seemed to remove the supposed stigma of mental health issues from the Royal Family.
And yet, as Garrard notes, porphyria opened up a different set of problems, because as an hereditable illness, George IV, and indeed other members of the Royal Family, became candidates for diagnosis too.
The research project still continues, but Garrard is already confident of one thing. "The porphyria theory is completely dead in the water. This was a psychiatric illness."
But it certainly did not stop George III from being a successful king. In a prosperous, industrialising Britain, it was growing more important for a monarch to reign rather than rule, providing background stability rather than aggressive leadership.
With his 60-year reign, George III certainly provided continuity, and I believe that his short episodes of illness tend unfairly to diminish our views of him.

See: BBC News - What was the truth about the madness of George III?

Mariel 04-15-2013 04:35 PM

This above article by Garrard shows a complete--I mean complete--lack of understanding of Porphyria.

But let me revert to answer an earlier statement by Tiaraprinz, that George suffered from arsenic poisoning rather than Porphyria. Not two different things entirely. Arsenic is one of the strongest triggers to bring inactive porphyria into the active phase. There are many other triggers, but this is one.

Porphyria is known to cause a variety of problems when it is activated. It is a genetic illness in most cases, and often it is not activated, even for a whole lifetime, or for long periods of time. Usually 50% of children get it, 75% if both parents have it, on statistical average, of course.

One problem which may occur is "mental illness". The long sentences and inability to stop talking is one possible symptom, which I believe is based on the lowered focus of the mind which can occur in an attack. It's similar to a person with another neuro illness, MS, who can't "sort" or "file" things well, due to a nerve glitch. This is not true manic/depressive illness, as far as I can see, and I've seen a lot, talked to hundreds of people with porphyria.

The blue urine thing has always been a red herring. People with porphyria often do produce dark or atypically colored urine, but not always. Some doctors are ignorant enough to say that a person with porphyria must always have red urine.
Again, dead wrong. This is a very complex subject so I won't bother you with all the possible colors of the rainbow.

The fact that George would completely recover when an attack passed--typical porphyria.

The basic problem with porphyria is that people who have it are handicapped in the detoxification of triggering substances, such as the above-mentioned arsenic, and many others--new rugs, rug glue, composite wood containing formaldehyde, some types of paint (such as that which poisoned Van Gogh, who had porphyria), formaldehyde wherever it occurs in building materials or in laboratories, such as biology classrooms, some foods which are high in phyto-estorgens, herbicides, pesticides, gasoline fumes, many prescription meds but not all prescription meds, etc. When the substance is finally detoxed, in whatever time period that takes, the person may return to "physical" and "mental" normality. They say George was very normal when he wasn't abnormal.

The handling of this issue has for the most part been preposterous.

Mariel 04-15-2013 08:28 PM

And furthermore, the article above states that the symptoms of porphyria are "aches and pains". Certainly this is an overall description which might apply to various illnesses and does apply to porphyria. However, the two most common signs of porphyria, which could be recognized in the ER, are abdominal pain (specific, not just aches and pains) and mental alteration. Thus, it is called a neuropsychiatric disease.
Sometimes called a neurosomatic disease, recognizing that the pains experienced are due to nerve impairment (in large measure--in chronic cases more organ impairment might be found). The symptoms of ab pain and mental alteration are common to a large percent of acute attacks.

But there are other symptoms caused by the nerve impairment of porphyria, such as spasticity, sometimes similar to what is seen in MS, another nerve-related disease. Tachycardia (very fast pulse) is usually present in attacks. If the type of porphyra has a skin component, rash could be present, either emergent or chronic.
But many types of porphyria do not have a skin component, or do not develop it until late in the course of the disease. PCP is a skin-only type, which is acquired rather than inherited, and we are not talking about this when discussing George III, who had Varigate Porphyria, one of the three main "acute hepatic porphyrias".

There are other subtler symptoms which may emerge over time and may even become chronic, as happened to George III in old age, resulting in the long regency.

Please excuse my long lecture, but false porphyria information has prompted me to give a very short course Porphyria here. Another good source, oddly, is the Wikipedia main presentation on Porphyria. Anyone who comments on Porph in the royal family should at least read Wiki.

J Kendrick 04-16-2013 03:44 PM

... Not to mention the fact that research by Professor John Rohl (one of the three authors of the book "Purple Secret") and his recent exhumation and testing of the remains of George III's great-great-granddaughter Princess Charlotte of Prussia (sister of Kaiser Wilhelm II) had found DNA evidence of the Porphyria mutation... a key detail in this story that the author of this latest BBC report appears to have missed.

Mariel 04-16-2013 09:00 PM

i read the book by Rohl. In the case of Charlotte, the DNA was partially successful (determined one step but not another, this being difficult when remains are old). In the case of Feodora, her remains were mixed in a common grave with those of her husband, according to Rohl, so this was not successful. However, the book is interesting in its catalog of the clinical records of various people on these blood lines, where the investigators could get access to the records. As long as there is secrecy, which is of course their right, there will be room for challenges to this diagnosis of a bloodline. The good news is that removal of inbreeding will help unravel this tangle.

An Ard Ri 01-20-2014 04:45 PM

Mecklenburg’s donation helps revive castle where Queen Charlotte was born

Mecklenburg’s donation helps revive castle where Queen Charlotte was born |

To thank residents of Mecklenburg County for a $15,000 donation nearly 18 years ago, the county’s German namesake has invited residents to come see what an impact the money had on the renovation of a castle. It’s not just any castle. Mirow Castle [Schloss Mirow] is the 18th-century birthplace of Queen Charlotte, the city’s namesake and the wife of King George III of England. In 1996, Mecklenburg County gave $15,000 to help renovate the castle. Those funds were matched with money raised from private sources.

It was behind the Iron Curtain in East Germany before the Berlin Wall fell and had fallen into disrepair over the years.
In the early 1990s, Mecklenburg County formed a cultural and educational exchange program with the German state of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, where the castle is located.

D.G. Martin, a Charlotte attorney who traveled to Germany in the early 1990s to search for and discover the area’s links to the Mecklenburg-Vorpommern region, said he is pleased to see the castle returned to its former glory. “We can have some pride in having a small part in that,” he said. More than that, Parks Helms, a former chairman of the Mecklenburg Board of County Commissioners, said that the renovation preserves an important piece of history. “It is important because it is a link to our history, who we are and where we come from,” he said. “It’s important to remember and strengthen the relationship between that community and this community.” He noted that there are more than 150 German companies operating in the Charlotte region.

CyrilVladisla 02-08-2014 07:13 PM

The painter Joshua Reynolds was the first president of the Royal Academy of Arts. The Royal Academy of Arts was founded in 1768 under the patronage of King George III.
George III was a book collector.
From early in his reign he began buying books.
These were paid for entirely from his private resources.
The King eventually owned 65,000 volumes as well as pamphlets, manuscripts, and maps.

The last child of George III and Queen Charlotte, their daughter Princess Amelia, was born five days before the coming of age of the first, the Prince of Wales in 1783.
Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart performed twice for King George III and Queen Charlotte during his 1764 visit.
Mozart was eight years old.
In private George III and Queen Charlotte called each other Mr. and Mrs. King.

Lee-Z 03-19-2014 02:09 AM


Originally Posted by CyrilVladisla (Post 1649690)
...The King eventually owned 65,000 volumes as well as pamphlets, manuscripts, and maps.

Where are these now? Are they still in the royal collection?

CyrilVladisla 03-19-2014 02:19 PM

The King's Collection was a royal collection of books created by King George III and donated to the nation.
The collection of books was given to the nation in 1823 by King George IV.
When the library was donated there was not enough space to house it in the original British Museum building.
A gallery was built at the British Museum in 1827 to house them.
In 1997-1998 the books were transferred to their new location in the King's Library Tower in the new British Library building at St. Pancras in London.
In 1786 George III was attacked by a mentally unstable woman while alighting from his carriage.
On the spot, the King declared that she was mad and should be treated humanely, and not be punished.
Queen Charlotte introduced the German custom of the Christmas tree to Windsor Castle. :xmastree2::xmastree2:
George III was the first Hanoverian monarch to have English as his first language.

Queen Charlotte with Prince George the baby

Furienna 07-13-2014 05:02 AM


In private George III and Queen Charlotte called each other Mr. and Mrs. King.
They did? That's cute!

LauraS3514 07-13-2014 07:32 PM

Of course, at this time in England it was customary for husbands and wives to call each other "Mr. Smith" and "Mrs. Smith" (or use other titles if they had them) in public and many did so even in private. In some circles given names were considered too common and informal for the "right sort" of people. :biggrin:

Warren 08-09-2014 12:23 AM

Best seen in "Pride and Prejudice" where Mrs Bennet is forever shouting out "Mr Bennet!"

Curryong 09-14-2014 02:03 AM

The future King George III is alleged to have married secretly, on 17th April 1759, a Quaker, Hannah Lightfoot, the daughter of a Wapping shoemaker, who is said to have borne him three children.

Documents relating to this marriage, which bore the Prince's signature, were impounded and examined in 1866 by the Attorney General. Learned opinion at the time leaned to the view that the documents were genuine.

They were placed in the Royal Archives at Windsor. Permission to view them by a would-be author was refused in 1910, and no outsider has seen them since.

If the future King George III did make such a marriage it would have been legal as it was before the Royal Marriages Act (1772.) Therefore, his marriage to Princess Charlotte in 1761 was bigamous.

Page 286. 'Britain's Royal Families: The Complete Genealogy'. Alison Weir. 2002.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:12 PM.

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2021
Jelsoft Enterprises