Royal Insight Forum

Although not the best of kings, he is one of my favourites.

The Coronation of King George IV (http://i41.photobucket.com/albums/e297/theinternetforum/GeorgeIVCoronation.jpg)

King George IV in his robes of the Order of the Garter (http://i41.photobucket.com/albums/e297/theinternetforum/GIVGarter.jpg)

Coronation Portrait (http://i41.photobucket.com/albums/e297/theinternetforum/GeorgeIV.jpg)

King George IV was the first Hanoverian King to visit Scotland (http://i41.photobucket.com/albums/e297/theinternetforum/GIVScot.jpg)

:)

Why is he your fav Windsor? Could you tell us sth about him coz I personally haven't heard of him. :blush:

why wouldnt you call him the best of kings? he lead Great Britain through the UK. of course, he wasnt raised or prepared for the job. i think he did a right marvelous job of it. especially on the public speaking front. he always had problems with his stutter...

 George was a very popular young Prince of Wales, but as he grew older his lifestyle, his enormous appetite for decadent food and large older ladies and his outrageous spending  habits changed public opinion.
Fruit and rubbish were thrown at his carriage when he went out and about. He did little to endear himself to his subjects when his obvious hatred for his wife Caroline of Brunswick resulted in her being barred from the coronation and subjected to a public trial regarding "her"infidelaties.......a bit like the pot calling the kettle black really.
  When their only child, Charlotte died in childbirth after days of very hard labour, he did not come down from a hunting estate, which caused him to be even more despised by his people.
       It would seem he has much in common with the present Prince of Wales, living extravagantly, treating his wife pretty shabbily and generally acting like a pompous, spoiled man who has no clue about how to woo his subjects.
          Heather

Quote from: T125eagle on April 17, 2006, 03:32:33 PM
why wouldnt you call him the best of kings? he lead Great Britain through the UK. of course, he wasnt raised or prepared for the job. i think he did a right marvelous job of it. especially on the public speaking front. he always had problems with his stutter...

I think you're thinking of George VI (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_VI)..the Queens dad :) This is George IV (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_IV_of_the_United_Kingdom).

QuoteIt would seem he has much in common with the present Prince of Wales, living extravagantly, treating his wife pretty shabbily and generally acting like a pompous, spoiled man who has no clue about how to woo his subjects.

I often like to compare Charles to Edward VIII (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_VIII)..mainly because of their desire for ugly women <_<

But I think Charles is typical of the spoilt..aloof and out of touch second in lines that have occurred through out history.  That's why perhaps they shouldn't automatically become monarch :)

Quote from: wombat on April 24, 2006, 06:34:51 AM
I think you're thinking of George VI (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_VI)..the Queens dad :) This is George IV (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_IV_of_the_United_Kingdom).
I often like to compare Charles to Edward VIII (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_VIII)..mainly because of their desire for ugly women <_<

But I think Charles is typical of the spoilt..aloof and out of touch second in lines that have occurred through out history.  That's why perhaps they shouldn't automatically become monarch :)

Wombat,
                I couldn't agree more! :)
Jolly well put!
                  Heather :yay:

Seriously..it's almost like they're molded into something really abnormal.  They don't act like future monarchs (with the exception of The Queen).  It's like they're born into a world of their own..where everyone says yes to them and they are always right.  Thank god QEII broke that mold...only to have it reform for Charles (and possibly Wills by the look of it) :unsure:

Quote from: wombat on April 25, 2006, 06:32:22 AM
Seriously..it's almost like they're molded into something really abnormal.  They don't act like future monarchs (with the exception of The Queen).  It's like they're born into a world of their own..where everyone says yes to them and they are always right.  Thank god QEII broke that mold...only to have it reform for Charles (and possibly Wills by the look of it) :unsure:

Too True Wombat,
                                the sychophants come out of the woodwork and lay on the flattery with a trowel, this goes on for years and years and does untold damage to a future King's perception of himself, the nation and his place in it all.
                                 Mayhap part of the education of a future King should include courses on how to spot sychophants, also how the other half lives and how to live within a budget.
      I think perhaps Diana was trying to do that when she took to boys to homeless shelters and made them get in the line up at McDonalds etc.
                                      Heather :)
                                 

King William IV ? The Forgotten Hanoverian (http://royalcentral.co.uk/blogs/history/king-william-iv-the-forgotten-hanoverian-45949)

Quote
King George I, King George II, King George III, King George IV and Queen Victoria. All Hanoverian Monarchs of the United Kingdom but the House of Hanover also presented us with another King – William IV. He may not have brought the Hanoverians to Britain like his great-grandfather or had the lengthy reign like his father and his niece but he was King nonetheless, a King whose reign saw immense reform in Britain and the ascendency of the House of Commons. In short William IV had a short but eventful reign and it is here we tell the story of the 'Sailor King'.

Most of William's early life was spent either at Richmond Palace or Kew Palace where private tutors educated him. At the early age of thirteen, William joined the Royal Navy as a midshipman and was present for the Battle of Cape St Vincent in 1780 during the American War of Independence. Not only this but, during the war he also served in New York.  Whilst serving in New York Prince William (as he was known then) was embroiled in a plot to kidnap him, approved by the first President of the USA George Washington. Thankfully the plot did not come to fruition – after the British learnt of the plot, many guards were assigned to the Prince who had until that time freely walked the streets of New York alone. In 1785 William became a Lieutenant and the following year was made Captain of HMS Pegasus.  The same year he was stationed in the West Indies under Horatio Nelson, William and Horatio became great friends and dined together nightly, William even insisted on giving Nelson's bride away at his wedding! William was given command of the frigate HMS Andromeda in 1788.

In 1820 William's Father King George III died and his elder brother the Prince Regent became King George IV. William was now second in the line of succession placed only behind his brother Frederick Duke of York. This was now a time when the prospect of William becoming King was high, both the King and Frederick had no legitimate issue to succeed them and both were very unhealthy men. When the Duke of York died in 1827, William who was over sixty years old, became heir presumptive. Also, in 1827 William was made Lord High Admiral by the incoming Prime Minister George Canning. Whilst in office William had repetitive conflicts with his Council, which was composed of Admiralty officers. These conflicts finally came to a head in 1828 when William was put to sea with a fleet of ships, leaving no clue as to where they were going and remaining away for ten days. These actions caused the King (through the new Prime Minister Arthur Wellesley) to request his resignation as Lord High Admiral, with which William complied. The remaining time of King George IV's reign, William spent in the House of Lords where he supported the Catholic emancipation bill against the opposition of his younger brother Ernest Augustus. While William was serving in the House of Lords, the King's health continued to deteriorate and it was obvious that the King was nearing death. No matter what genuine affection William felt for George, as his brother and as King, this could not hide the rising anticipation William felt for the fact that he would soon be King.

In 1689 James II landed in Ireland with a force of French soldiers. I like the fact that William III personally took command of his army to defeat his father-in-law's forces.     
:duel: :duel: :duel: :duel: :duel: :duel: :duel:

When Earl Grey asked King William IV to create enough new peers to stack the House of Lords with reformers, William refused to take that step. The King accepted the resignations of Earl Grey's cabinet in protest.

The coronation robe of King George IV was sixteen feet in length.   
George IV coronation robe - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xzILrRkvT8)

Well, King George IV was a vain old tart. He channeled Liberace in the elaborate nature of the clothing and regalia he personally designed for himself and his retinue for his Coronation.

Medievalism was all the rage then and the outfits reflected that. In so many ways George was a very silly man. He spent hundreds of thousands of pounds at the flick of an eyelash at a time when people could quite literally die of starvation and exposure on the streets and the U.K. was struggling out of post war depression after the defeat of Napoleon. 

He also has the dubious distinction of being the "reason" the royal marriages act was created....

There is one big difference between Charles Windsor and his predecessor Princes of Wales (Edward and George). Charles is not a slacker or indolent. Yes he does spend a lot but also does earn a lot. He has changed a ceremonial role of idleness into one that actually helps many, many people. He found a Duchy of Cornwall that was in the red by up to $15 million. He now regularly earns profits in excess of $40 million per year from that Duchy. His charitable interests and projects are even more substantial.  I believe that attempts to link him to previous princes of wales are far-fetched. The only similarity is that is in having mistresses, even then Charles is at the bottom of the league in terms of sheer numbers.

As for mistreating his wife, Diana was nowhere as hated by her husband or as mistreated as Caroline of Brunswick. She was given a house of her own and a substantial allowance, something Caroline never got.  I think there is always a temptation to sensationalize what was a bad marriage into some kind of epic tragedy of evil.  Diana was not an abused wife and certainly did not experience the hardships that abused wives face. Her own mother had a far worse time than she ever did.

As for tastes in ugly women...that is a matter of taste. In any case looks are not everything...as Diana tragically learnt. You need a lot more than good looks to sustain a relationship, let alone a marriage. 

God what absolute nonsene,.  what on earth has Charles got to do with George IV?
And in his defence. whiel he wasn't a good husband to Caroline, she was hardly queen material.  True he only spent a few nights with her, but other than that I don't know of his ill treating her as such.  He left her alone mostly and he refused to allow her to be crowned with him.

Hold your fire....I wasnt trying to link him to Charles at all, I didnt even mention Charles. Although I did learn that fact in a doc about royal lovers, marriages, etc. that of course did have C&C&D in it. As one follows the doc, one can see he made a bit of bother for Princess Margaret.
Royal Lovers - Camilla, Diana and Charles Documentary Documentary 2017 - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LpJ162zJIcM&t=23s)

But if you watch it, you will see a general theme of similarity between Edward VII, Edward VIII, and Charles. I guess one could say George IV had the overall royal entitlement and poor marriage decisions that the monarch has to rescue with a monetary payout, so I guess there are some similarities to Charles.

Thanks for reminding me, I forgot about that part.  :lol:

I think the posts were related to Heather's earlier post not to @Duch_Luver_4ever.

im not sure if shes still around to hear it the post was about 10 yrs old. I guess not a lot of call to shoot the breeze about George IV  :lol:

It's a good job for all concerned that for his Coronation, King Charles won't be having fashionable herbs-women throwing petals or Privy Councilors dressed in the style of Queen Elizabeth's day. (Or that, from Charles POV, unlike Caroline, that Diana won't be banging on the closed Abbey doors.) The whole thing cost an absolute fortune and of course George was in his element. (His widowed son in law Leopold was present.)

George IV’s Coronation | (http://brightonmuseums.org.uk/discover/2015/02/26/george-ivs-coronation/)

@Curryong, It was informative to learn that Prince Leopold was in attendance at his father-in-law's coronation. This is the first time I had learned this.

Yes, I hadn't really thought about that, LF. However, Leopold did hang around in Britain for a very long time, (though no doubt going on regular visits to Coburg through the years.) Financially he was in receipt of a large allowance from parliament and the sympathy of the British people. If the relationship between himself and his father in law was rather cool (absolutely nothing in common) I doubt it bothered either of them much.

He stayed around in fact until he was offered the throne of the Belgians. He seems to have been very fond of his sister Victoire and little niece Victoria, and was able to help them financially. His sister must have been very grateful.

well he had nothing much to do, had he other than live on the vast allowance.  I don't really expect him to give it up, Royals didn't do tat in his day....

When William IV was still Prince William, he asked his father for a dukedom and the parliamentary grant that would come with it. His older brother Prince Frederick was Duke of York. George III refused. William threatened to stand for a seat in the House of Commons. King George conceded. William was made Duke of Clarence in 1789.

In 1836 King William IV asked the Duchess of Kent and Princess Victoria to come to Windsor Castle to celebrate Queen Adelaide's birthday on August 13. He wanted them to stay over until the 21st, which was his own birthday.     

Princess Charlotte Augusta of Wales was the daughter and heiress of King George IV of Great Britain. Her mother was Princess Caroline of Brunswick.   
Prince Leopold was the son of Duke Francis of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld. 
Charlotte and Leopold married on May 2, 1816 at Carlton House in London.   
Charlotte's dress was a white and silver slip, covered with transparent silk net embroidered in silver lame with shells and flowers. The sleeves were trimmed with Brussels lace. The train was six feet long.   
Charlotte wore a wreath of diamond leaves and roses.     
Leopold wore a scarlet British uniform. He carried a jewel-encrusted sword that had been given to him by Queen Charlotte.     
 

Weddings in the evening were very popular as well in the 18th and early 19th centuries. It must have looked magnificent by candlelight, though for people marrying in church these buildings were often so large they seem to have been quite dark even during the day. Interesting isn't it that so many Royal weddings took place at home, as did Princess Charlotte's? Carlton House was the Prince Regent's London home, later the Carlton Club, a gentlemen's club.

Charlotte fell in love with Leopold at first sight, having previously rejected the Prince of Orange, to the Prince Regent's annoyance.

On February 21, 1702 King William III was riding in Richmond Park, near London, when his horse stumbled on a molehill. William's hand became swollen. He could not sign his documents and instead had to use a stamp.   
     

William III authorized the establishment of the Bank of England to finance his campaigns. His expensive wars on the continent served the larger purpose of containing French power. However this drew little admiration from the English.

If Princess Charlotte had married William of Orange, was there not an agreement that she, Charlotte, would be required to reside for a certain length of time each year in The Netherlands?

Quote from: Curryong on March 14, 2018, 01:00:47 AM
Weddings in the evening were very popular as well in the 18th and early 19th centuries. It must have looked magnificent by candlelight, though for people marrying in church these buildings were often so large they seem to have been quite dark even during the day. Interesting isn't it that so many Royal weddings took place at home, as did Princess Charlotte's? Carlton House was the Prince Regent's London home, later the Carlton Club, a gentlemen's club.

Weddings were generally small affairs in the 18th C, but its likey that if Leopold and C had married in a church, unless it was a private chapel, it would have attracted public attention and been hard to avoid crowds coming to stare.  And it was considered that  an upper class bride, being a "lady" was shy and modest and did not want to be stared at, at such a "delicate" occasion.  George III I believe was the one who put an end to the idea of a public "bedding" of himself and his wife.. as "times were more refined" and women were seen as "more delicate" in their behaviour and attitudes than had been the notion in bawdier, earlier times. 
by the time Charl got married, the idea was more and more that  a lady didn't want to be looked at by everyone when she was going through this rite of passage that involved sex...
so having the wedding in ther private house was one way of avoiding that and keeping it as only family...

Princess Charlotte and Prince Leopold had agreed to be the patrons of a new theatre, The Royal Coburg. They were due to lay the foundation stone on September 14, 1817. But on September 14 the ceremony was performed by one of the City Aldermen instead. Why did Charlotte and Leopold not attend?

Princess Charlotte was in the last months of the pregnancy and that alone would have prevented her from attending a public event. Women of her status did not appear in public with such an advanced pregnancy.

QuotePrincess Charlotte Augusta of Wales (7 January 1796 ? 6 November 1817)

Quote from: TLLK on August 18, 2018, 05:49:47 AM
It is possible that weather or other issues related to travel in the early 19th century prevented the couple from attending.

I haven't read any biographies but I am sure there are several modern ones about Charlote and Leopold.  I'd assume that there might be an explanation in one of them...

@amabel-I realized not long after I posted that Charlotte was pregnant then and would not have appeared in public.

Quote from: TLLK on August 18, 2018, 05:49:47 AM
Princess Charlotte was in the last months of the pregnancy and that alone would have prevented her from attending a public event. Women of her status did not appear in public with such an advanced pregnancy.

Im not sure they were quite so prim about pregnancy in the Regency era, as ladies became in Victorian times... but its a possibility tht she was not too well, or was so very pregnant that she didn't apper in public.  but Im sure this info is more likely to be found in a bio of the couple...

It was probably just a typo but it was Sept 1816 not 1817 when the foundation stone for the Royal Coburg theatre (later to become the Old Vic) was laid.

Royal Coburg Theatre : London Remembers, Aiming to capture all memorials in London (https://www.londonremembers.com/memorials/royal-coburg-theatre)

Charlotte was pregnant shortly after her marriage but it was announced that she had suffered a miscarriage when she and Leopold attended the Opera and she became ill, worrying observers. She had the miscarriage that July when staying at Camelford House in London. (From my copy of 'Charlotte and Leopold: Story of the People's Princess.' and 'Britain's Royal Families: A Complete Geneology' by Alison Weir.)

The couple moved into their country house at Claremont in August 1816, after the end of the London Season, and the Princess was fine then. However, her father the Prince Regent was being booed and his coach stoned in the streets of London at this time (it was in the middle of his collecting information to divorce his estranged wife Caroline for her misbehaviour.)

Caroline was a favourite of the London mobs) and the Coburgs may not have wanted to stir this very prickly man up by the inevitable cheers and claps they would get by going up to Town and appearing at the foundation stone  ceremony. It was said they were hidden away in great contentment at Claremont that autumn.

I don't think that Royals were expected to do all this stuff so much back then, so maybe they just weren't that pushed bout going to a laying foundation stone thing.  Or perhaps tey were deterred by knowng the Regent would be displeased if they got noticed....

Yes, I agree. Charlotte and her husband led semi-private lives really, especially in comparison to senior royals of even 100 years later. It was considered a huge honour for any Royal or Duke/Duchess to condescend to allow any building to be named after them, and who knows, the couple may even have arranged for the Alderman to be their proxy.

QuoteIt was probably just a typo but it was Sept 1816 not 1817 when the foundation stone for the Royal Coburg theatre (later to become the Old Vic) was laid

Thanks for catching this error @Curryong. George IV must have been a nightmare to try and "reason" with at times. I suspect that he was envious of his daughter's popularity with the people.

Quote from: TLLK on August 18, 2018, 03:11:52 PM
Thanks for catching this error @Curryong. George IV must have been a nightmare to try and "reason" with at times. I suspect that he was envious of his daughter's popularity with the people.

Of course he was... he and his brothers were disliked ot the point of hatred by the people and even by many of the aristocracy.. and the truth is that Charlotte was no angel, but by comparison with her father and uncles, she looked pretty good...

The landing of William of Orange (William III) in England in 1688   
The landing of William of Orange in England in 1688. William III Stock Photo: 164737569 - Alamy (http://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-the-landing-of-william-of-orange-in-england-in-1688-william-iii-1650-164737569.html)

Sophia Dorothea was born on March 16, 1687. She was the daughter of George Louis of Hanover, later King George I of Great Britain, and Sophia Dorothea of Celle.   
She was raised in Hanover under the supervision of her paternal grandmother.

The Prince Regent (the future King George IV) kept Princess Charlotte and Prince Leopold apart as much as possible. Leopold was in Brighton and Charlotte was in Windsor. They met occasionally when Charlotte drove down to the Pavilion for dinner.     
     
   

When he was told that his carriage was not ready to take him to Parliament, King William IV is reported to have declared, 'Then I will go by hackney cab.'     
 

The Grand Duchess Catherine of Russia arrived in London on March 17. She and Princess Charlotte visited each other often at the Pulteney Hotel and Warwick Hotel. The Prince Regent (George IV) tried to prevent his daughter Charlotte from appearing anywhere in society other than at Carlton Hotel.

On November 28, 1706, Sophia Dorothea married her cousin Crown Prince Frederick William of Prussia, the heir apparent to the Prussian throne.   
She was interested in art, science, and literature.

In January 1813, just after she had celebrated her seventeenth birthday, Princess Charlotte was informed that her new governess was to be the Duchess of Leeds. The new sub-governess was to be Miss Cornelia Knight. Charlotte was furious. She was seventeen years old. No girl of seventeen had a governess. And anyway she was a princess.       
 

During the reign of King William IV, in 1833 20 million pounds was set aside as compensation for the slave owners after the abolition of slavery in the British Empire.

When Princess Charlotte had reached the age at which she was constitutionally entitled to the throne and rule without a regent, her uncle, The Duke of Sussex asked if there were any plans to provide her with her own appropriate establishment.

Prince Frederick threatened to divorce Sophia Dorothea the same year they married, accusing her of not wanting to be married to him.

Wow! Sounds like an arranged marriage gone wrong.  :censored2:

They were first cousins and he chose Sophia Dorothea out of a choice of three princesses. He'd been attracted to her since his early teens but she disliked him from childhood. They had absolutely nothing in common, and in spite of several children had a miserable marriage.

Crown Prince Frederick William and Princess Sophia Dorothea had a common grandmother. She was the Electress Sophia of Hanover. Sophia commissioned her niece, Elizabeth Charlotte, Princess of the Palatinate to procure Sophia Dorothea's trousseau in Paris.

William IV was on the throne when the Tolpuddle Martyrs were transported to Australia.

When William III became the King of England in 1689, should not the royal house have been the House of Orange? After all, William III was from The Netherlands.

^ No, because his wife had the primary right to the throne of England through her father who was a King and a Stuart. William did have a link to the Throne through his mother, who was a sister to Charles II. It was agreed during the negotiations towards William and Mary's accession that they would be dual Monarchs but that didn't place William ahead of his wife. Remember, their successor Queen Anne was married to a Prince of Denmark but the House name of Stuart didn't change then either.

When Princess Charlotte had a holiday in Weymouth, she went to performances at the Theatre Royal and the occasional ballet at the Assembly Rooms. She was allowed to give dinner parties. She invited some of the aristocracy and gentry who came to stay in rented houses or at Ressell's Royal Hotel.

Prince Leopold of Saxe-Coburg with Princess Charlotte at Esher Church in 1816   
Princess Leopold of Saxe-Coburg , nee Princess Charlotte of Britain,... News Photo - Getty Images (http://www.gettyimages.com/license/3285833)

In 1699 King William III appointed Bishop Gilbert Burnet as tutor to Prince William, Duke of Gloucester, the son of Princess Anne.   
In 1699 King William III appointed Bishop Gilbert Burnet as tutor to Stock Photo: 87952863 - Alamy (http://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-in-1699-king-william-iii-appointed-bishop-gilbert-burnet-as-tutor-87952863.html)

King William III called the legislature to convene every year. He needed this for war revenue and it reassured the lawmakers that he would not govern without them.

On February 3, 1689, Prince William of Orange declared that he could not agree to rule as regent or as Mary's consort. He demanded the full power and sovereignty of a monarch, jointly held with his wife. They became William III and Mary II.

1814 First meeting between Princess Charlotte and Prince Leopold   
1814 First meeting between Princess Charlotte of Wales and Prince Leopold of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld | Grand Ladies | gogm (http://gogmsite.net/empire-napoleonic-and-roman/subalbum-princess-charlotte/1814-first-meeting-between-.html)

Princess Charlotte asked Henry Brougham to write a short statement to the effect that she was determined never to marry the Prince of Orange. If ever there should be an announcement of such a match, it must be understood to be without her consent and against her will. When it was written, Charlotte asked for six copies to be made. She signed all of them and gave one to each person present.     

After George IV became king, the government tried to get a divorce for the King by act of parliament. For George IV to divorce his wife Caroline of Brunswick, was it necessary to have Parliament involved?

Of course Parliament had to involve themselves in a monarch's divorce. That would be so even today albeit only with a speech in the Commons after the divorce was granted.
It was the House of Lords, not the Commons, who tried to placate George IV by trying to ensure a divorce. In those days there were no divorce courts and wealthy people, including peers who wished to divorce had to petition the House of Lords.

A former investigation of Caroline's morals and behaviour in and out of the U.K. called The Delicate Investigation had failed, largely because no absolute proof beyond servants gossip was declared as sustainable, Lord Brougham a well known lawyer, MP and Radical, galloped to her defence and the authorities were also wary of mob violence.The poor and radicals were on Caroline's side. In the end, due again to a speech by Lord Brougham, the Lords attempt came to nothing.

Caroline died shortly after the coronation anyway, following a very unbecoming scene of her attempts to enter the Abbey on George's Coronation day.

Queen Caroline of Brunswick, wife of George IV (https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofBritain/Queen-Caroline/)

yes that was the only way you could get a divorce by a private Act of Parliament.. and it had to go through teh Commons and the Lords, didn't it. 

Yes, basically between the 17th century (when there was a famous case that started it all) and 1857 when the Matrimonial Causes Act reformed things a bit in England and Wales, establishing a Divorces Court on very restrictive grounds, the only way to get a divorce so that you might possibly marry again was satisfying the Canon Courts that the marriage could not be saved and then, through a Private Act, going through the whole rigmarole again through the Commons and the Lords. The Commons proceedings required a full sitting of the House, which must have been very edifying, talk about airing dirty linen! It was all time consuming, difficult and expensive with no guarantee of success.

The vast number of such Acts between 1670 and 1857 were brought by wealthy (and determined) men. I've never been sure of what Canon courts did what in Doctors Commons. There were obscure judiciaries like Court of the Arches. I think Dickens made fun of them in his early years. However, although they allowed for a separation of bed and board they did not permit remarriage, so it was off to Parliament if you wanted a new wife! I imagine the vast majority of the population just quietly separated, lived in sin with another, or suffered in silence!

Of course, people either separated or deserted or put up with things.  A divorce cost about ?1000 I think so very few people could afford it and it was only in cases of really hating a wife or her makinga public scandal... or possibley needing a legitimate heir.. that anyone would go through all the hassle of a divorce.  But George did hate Caroline adn Vice Versa...

Yes, George didn't want anything to do with Caroline and certainly didn't want her enthroned beside him as Queen Consort. He had basically married her to get his debts paid by Parliament, and they were unimpressed with each other from the moment they met. He did treat her very badly.

IMO it was six of one and half a dozen of the other with those two, however. He was a spoiled and shallow spendthrift and fantasist who couldn't sustain a long term relationship anyway. Neither could Caroline, who was vulgar and unstable and unsuitable to be a consort to any Prince or sovereign. She supposedly had been brought up reasonably carefully but was careless and wilful. A match made in hell, really. At least their only child found happiness for a short while in a happy marriage. 

True Caroline was a disaster.  I think she must have had some kind of learning difficulties, which drove her to crazy antics, silly pranks and affairs with unsuitable men...Bad as George was, one cant really blame him for wanting a divorce, as she really should not have been married to anyone who had any kind of public role.  They coudl have ketp her quietly at home surely, romping and seducing the footmen. 

---

Double post auto-merged: December 30, 2020, 09:28:56 AM

---

As far as I can remember, when there was the Delicate Investigation into her conduct after she and George separated, George III said something on the lines that Caroline's behaviour was such that he could not really condone it.. that if she'd had one lover because she was lonely and a deserted wife, he could have understood and concealed it but her behavior was too awful...
Am I right in remembering that @Curryong ?  YOu usually know these things.

In August 1818 the Prince of Wales (the future King George IV) appointed a three-man commission to investigate his wife's adulterous activities.   
Queen Caroline or Caroline of Brunswick (1768 ? 1821), was the wife Stock Photo - Alamy (http://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-caroline-of-brunswick-113014664.html)

King George IV ate a lot of pies.   
The sheer gluttony of King George IV - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9LRHGWyWRRs)

I would gather to believe that King George IV was am emotional eater, he ate to fill that void inside of him.

Do you believe that if George IV would have had a wife he could have gotten along with, he might not have eaten so much?  :shemademe: :shemademe: :shemademe: :shemademe:

King George IV had a propensity to plumpness when he was Prince Regent as well as Prince of Wales before that. When he and Caroline met just before their wedding neither was pleased with the other. Caroline looked inelegant and unrefined, George however was overweight, and both commented on the subject to nearby friends.

George was plump in his later reunion years with Mrs Fitzherbert just as he was as King with his last mistress Lady Oxford, so it had nothing to do with how he got on with females in relationships. It was a high-drinking and gluttonous Age, thinness was as criticised as being fat (Pitt the younger, the PM for a time, was noticeably skinny and was satirically known as ?The Bottomless Pit(t)? due to having a concave rear end. That was just as bad as the Prince Regent being referred to as ?A Fat Adonis of Forty?, though the satirist who called him that in print went to jail for lese-majeste.

Willowy women in the 18th and early 19th centuries were not as admired as statuesque, large breasted females. It was just the fashion of the time. And although George?s weight certainly exacerbated his health problems his rank and position in Society meant he could get any lady he fancied anyway. The Hanoverians were a family prone to packing on the pounds, and that continued through the 19th century. Look at the elderly Victoria and her son Bertie!

Yes Victoria and Bertie definitely inherited that tendency to gain weight. It wasn't until the very figure concious Alexandra and Mary, then later Phillip married into the family that there was a change in physique among the descendants.

Prinny was truly one of the more extravagant and excessive monarchs in British History.

Quote from: TLLK on October 20, 2021, 01:46:59 PM
Yes Victoria and Bertie definitely inherited that tendency to gain weight. It wasn't until the very figure concious Alexandra and Mary, then later Phillip married into the family that there was a change in physique among the descendants.

Prinny was truly one of the more extravagant and excessive monarchs in British History.

AFAICR, Edward VIII was concerned about the family tendency to get fatter, and used to worry about his weight but the present RF are rather slimmer in shape than the Hanoverians, certainly.  Except for Andrew

Since Charlotte was the one who broke off the engagement with Willem, Hereditary Prince of Orange, it was reasonable to say that she was the one who should tell her father. Charlotte thought it was cowardly. When she wrote to her father herself that day, she made out that it was the Prince who had broken off the engagement.   

In 1689 King William III made Britain a part of the Grand Alliance. The Grand Alliance was a coalition of European powers forced to oppose France. As a result the first eight years of William's reign were taken up with fighting, first in Ireland and then on the Continent.

The future King George I had become a patron of the composer Handell before acceding to the English throne. He appointed Handell as Kapellmeister to the Hanover court in 1710. As King of England, George appointed Handell music teacher to his granddaughters.

George II was born in Hanover. He was the last English king to be born abroad. 
When George was on trips to Hanover, he refused to let his eldest son Frederick Louis, Prince of Wales to have a hand inn government when he was gone.

Accompanied by his Whig Party ministers, King William IV went to the House of Commons to dissolve Parliament in 1831.

Why did King George III appoint Lady De Clifford as Princess Charlotte of Wales' governess? Why was this not done by her father Prince George?

Quote from: LouisFerdinand on February 15, 2022, 08:07:56 PM
   
Prince Albert Edward had been Prince of Wales for almost 60 years before he became King Edward VII.

King William IV was also in his sixties when he succeeded his brother George IV. Elderly monarchs coming to the Throne in their 60s+ are however often the result of a very young monarch (usually female) bearing/siring a healthy heir in her/his very early twenties. This heir and those following him/her are therefore almost inevitably quite mature when they ascend the Throne. There?s usually a bottleneck as well, with middle aged heirs to the heirs having growing families.

Contemporaries in Sweden, the Swedish Kings, resembledthe modern-day Windsors and lived into their 80s and 90s, like King Carl Gustav?s grandfather, great-grandfather etc, though his father died in middle age in an air crash.

Prince George (King George II) received news from Sir Horace Walpole, British Prime Minister, of his father's demise in June 1727.     
Prince George (King George II) receives news from from Sir Horace Walpole, British Prime Minister, of his father's death in June 1727 during one (http://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-king-george-ii-receives-news-87986041.html)

Sophia Dorothea married Frederick William on November 28, 1706. She had only arrived in Berlin the day before.

Miniature of Princess Charlotte of Wales   
Explore the Royal Collection Online (http://www.rct.uk/collection/search#/51/collection/420658/princess-charlotte-1796-1817)

House of Commons in session during the reign of King George II     
House of Commons in session during the reign of King George II. Hand-colored woodcut Stock Photo - Alamy (http://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-house-of-commons-in-session-during-the-reign-of-king-george-ii-12908253.html)

King George IV's visit to Scotland was orchestrated by the novelist and playwright Sir Walter Scott. The visit lasted for three weeks. It was a public relations success.

Quote from: LouisFerdinand on July 26, 2022, 10:17:38 PM

It would be interesting to see the names Princess Charlotte of Wales and her husband Prince Leopold would have given to a daughter.

I could definitely see Charlotte honouring her father (even though she didn?t like him very much) with a Georgiana, if her older brother hadn?t been named George. However I think that possibility was almost inevitable so perhaps something like Leopoldine or Augusta or Mary after relatives. I don?t think the name Caroline would have been considered with her father still on the throne. The Saxe Coburg Gothas too were an enormous family with many female aunts and cousins as consorts on thrones so I don?t think they would have been stuck for names for daughters, who were considered less important than sons.

Leopold ended up fathering three legitimate and two illegitimate sons (as well as a legitimate daughter) later in life so he may well have been one of those men who mostly sire males. However, I just can?t see Charlotte having a very large family of boys or girls, unlike her niece Victoria. She had already had one miscarriage before she fell into the hands of an admittedly hopeless obstetrician and died, and if she had survived and further births had followed I could see more miscarriages and stillbirths.

@Curryong, I like the suggestion of Leopoldine. Leopoldine or Leopoldina has been used for daughters in other countries. Do you think there might have been a possibility of Eleanor being used?

Quote from: LouisFerdinand on July 27, 2022, 11:13:35 PM
@Curryong, I like the suggestion of Leopoldine. Leopoldine or Leopoldina has been used for daughters in other countries. Do you think there might have been a possibility of Eleanor being used?

It depends on how many daughters were born, I suppose. As I wrote in my post I can?t imagine Charlotte having a large family. She worshipped Leopold and so I do think that Leopoldine would have been suggested by her. The earlier part of the 19th century had a vogue for medievalism and so I suppose Eleanor may have been a possibility. However, there were so many female relatives on both the Hanover and Saxe Coburg sides that I think, following the custom of the day, those names would have been chosen first.

The House of Commons in session during the reign of King George II     
House of Commons in session during the reign of King George II. Hand-colored woodcut Stock Photo - Alamy (http://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-house-of-commons-in-session-during-the-reign-of-king-george-ii-12908253.html)

 :eyes:

Quote from: Curryong on July 28, 2022, 01:07:23 AM
It depends on how many daughters were born, I suppose. As I wrote in my post I can?t imagine Charlotte having a large family. She worshipped Leopold and so I do think that Leopoldine would have been suggested by her. The earlier part of the 19th century had a vogue for medievalism and so I suppose Eleanor may have been a possibility. However, there were so many female relatives on both the Hanover and Saxe Coburg sides that I think, following the custom of the day, those names would have been chosen first.

I'd say if Charlotte had a daughter Elizabeth would be a first choice for a name.

Well certainly her father had a sister Elizabeth, who, after her niece?s death, married the Landgrave of Hesse Homburg. However, I?m not too sure as to whether she and Leopold were very close to this particular aunt. I don?t know whether Elizabeth was very in vogue as a name then. Charlotte and Leopold were still young and might have wanted a name more reminiscent of medieval Royalty.

 :fuming:

Quote from: Curryong on November 04, 2022, 10:24:56 AM
Well certainly her father had a sister Elizabeth, who, after her niece?s death, married the Landgrave of Hesse Homburg. However, I?m not too sure as to whether she and Leopold were very close to this particular aunt. I don?t know whether Elizabeth was very in vogue as a name then. Charlotte and Leopold were still young and might have wanted a name more reminiscent of medieval Royalty.

Elizabeth has always been a very common name in England and its possible, if Charlotte had only one child, that she would have a daughter who was queen.  Hence the name Elizabeth.

Quote from: Amabel2 on November 04, 2022, 10:47:06 AM
:fuming:Elizabeth has always been a very common name in England and its possible, if Charlotte had only one child, that she would have a daughter who was queen.  Hence the name Elizabeth.

I don?t know why there should be fuming.

I think my original answer was to LouisFerdinand in regard to an alternative universe in which Charlotte and her eldest child, the son that died, would have survived and the question was what would the couple have subsequently named a daughter (born later in the marriage.) I?m not sure that Elizabeth would have been an automatic choice for a name at the beginning of the 19th century, that?s all, Jane Austen?s Lizzie Bennett aside. After all, there were Queens regnant named Anne and Mary as well as Elizabeth.

I dont know why that cropped up as I dont do emoticons as Im sure you must guess, im not clever wiht computers.
As for Elizabeth, sure you remeber the fracas over the christening of Victoria a couple of years later when the parents wanted to call her Elizabeth and hte Regent did not want her to have a queenly name.  and Adelaide's child who lived for 4 months was called Elizabeth.

Quote from: Amabel2 on November 04, 2022, 02:18:57 PM
I dont know why that cropped up as I dont do emoticons as Im sure you must guess, im not clever wiht computers.
As for Elizabeth, sure you remeber the fracas over the christening of Victoria a couple of years later when the parents wanted to call her Elizabeth and hte Regent did not want her to have a queenly name.  and Adelaide's child who lived for 4 months was called Elizabeth.

Is OK, I just wondered!
Victoria?s parents had already had received the permission of Tsar Alexander as sponsor for their child, so Alexandrina was already in place as a forename. It was Georgina that Edward and Victoire wanted to call their baby but the Regent refused to have his name go after the Tsar?s.

I don?t recall Elizabeth being a choice but by then the Regent was becoming very grumpy anyway. He absolutely refused the name Charlotte (his and Edward?s mother?s name) because his own dead daughter had been named after her, and several other names were proffered in vain. In the end Victoire was weeping and Edward was in despair, so George said ?Call her after her mother!? and so she became Alexandrina Victoria. You would think it all should have been sorted out beforehand!

Adelaide did have an Rlizabeth but none of her babies were healthy and for a long time they hoped for a living son. William had all those thriving illegitimates, but like his brother George no living legitimate heir in the end. It was as if Victoria was fated to be Queen in a way, considering what happened with Edward?s older brothers.

By the way, as per the remark I made about George IV being ?a vain old tart? and the discussion that followed, I was reading a biography of Mark Bolan of T-Rex yesterday and a journalist in the British music paper Melody Maker described Bolan, then on the downward slope of his career in 1976, as ?parading around on stage like a tired old tart looking for a last trick?.

It seems maybe to be a bit of British slang from the 1960s and 70s to describe males who are past their prime (though Bolan was still in his 20s then) in that fashion, so that era may be what I?m channeling! I?ll be saying ?Peace, man!? and ?Far out!? next.

Probably because Marc Bolan had this effeminate persona, (not sure if he was gay) - and if he was looking seedy and wearing all that glittery stuff, he might be siad to look like a cheap tart. 

I think Bolan was quite overweight at that time, rather like George IV! He had a girlfriend and baby when he was killed in a car crash (she was driving) but I think he was bisexual, Bolan not King George!

Quote from: LouisFerdinand on January 13, 2023, 11:41:00 PM

How many daughters did King George III and Queen Charlotte have?     
King George III's Daughters - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qk89QpirhkM)

There were six daughters I believe, most of whom led restricted and rather sad lives.

of course there were 6 daughters.  It is clear from the video.  Charlotte, Augusta, Elizabeth, Mary Sophia and Amelia. 

Quote from: LouisFerdinand on March 15, 2023, 07:56:56 PM

How could Mrs. Maria Fitzherbert be the Queen?   
Mrs. Fitzherbert and George IV: The Woman Who Should Be Queen - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2UnORyNT2k4)

She couldn?t. Mrs Fitzherbert was a devout Roman Catholic, which went directly against the Protestant monarchy?s Act of Settlement of 1701. The Prince of Wales had not asked permission from his father to marry her, which would have been refused anyway, but the ceremony that was performed in September 1785 directly contravened the Royal Marriages Act of 1772, which King George III had requested Parliament pass. Those two things alone would have barred her from becoming Queen Consort if the Prince Of Wales had become King after 1785.

And the selfish old horror married Pss Caroline to get money to pay his debts, and I supose to father a legitimate heir.  Its been rumoured that Caroline said that Maria F was his true wife.

Quote from: Amabel2 on March 16, 2023, 08:19:23 AM
And the selfish old horror married Pss Caroline to get money to pay his debts, and I supose to father a legitimate heir.  Its been rumoured that Caroline said that Maria F was his true wife.

Yes, Caroline said George was so drunk on their wedding night that he stayed lying in the fireplace hearth for half the night, though he must have come to bed at some stage because Caroline became pregnant with Charlotte on that occasion. I don?t think they spent much time together at all after that disastrous beginning. Goodness, how that couple loathed each other.! Charles and Diana at the height of the War of the Waleses had nothing on them! And he then tried his hardest to divorce her by trying to ruin her reputation beforehand in a public ?trial? and failed. 

I think when George died he was found to be wearing a piece of jewellery that Maria had given him under his nightshirt. He was very sentimental about her later on, but I can?t imagine that he would have made an admirable husband under any circumstances.

well to be fair to George, Caroline was a terrible wife.  I dont entirely blame him for trying to divorce her, she had had plenty of affairs herself.

Quote from: Amabel2 on March 16, 2023, 12:21:45 PM
well to be fair to George, Caroline was a terrible wife.  I dont entirely blame him for trying to divorce her, she had had plenty of affairs herself.

Yes, they were as bad as each other by that time. However, George put no effort into the marriage from the beginning.

Quote from: Curryong on March 16, 2023, 12:30:47 PM
Yes, they were as bad as each other by that time. However, George put no effort into the marriage from the beginning.

nor did Caroline.  She didn't wash, and was silly and vulgar, and once seh had produced a baby, she seems to have flung herself into affairs.

When George IV was Prince Regent he gave orders to John Nash for the creation of Regent's Park in London.

Quote from: LouisFerdinand on June 13, 2023, 09:47:17 PM
When George IV was Prince Regent he gave orders to John Nash for the creation of Regent's Park in London.

The Prince Regent had some big plans for that part of London, a large and splendid new Palace for himself, smart town houses within easy reach for his cronies, and lots of parkland! Unfortunately for him the Govt held the purse strings and had other ideas!

Quote from: LouisFerdinand on August 29, 2023, 10:44:44 PM

In 1829 King George IV of England gave the Catholic Emancipation Bill royal assent.

Yes, with great reluctance. Apparently he was drunk (a not unusual occurrence for him) when he signed off on the Act. In his case though, I don?t think it was real anti Catholic prejudice as much as a dislike of the Whig politicians who had been pushing it.

From Wiki
As Robert Peel pointed out to George IV in 1829, every House of Commons elected beginning in 1807 expressed majority support for Catholic emancipation, except that of 1818, which voted only once on the issue, in 1819, and rejected the motion by two votes.[3] Despite this, the votes in the House of Lords were consistently negative, in part because of the king's own opposition. The balance of opinion in the House of Lords shifted abruptly in 1828?29 in response to public opinion, especially reflecting fear of a religious civil war in Ireland.[citation needed] In 1828 the Sacramental Test Act removed the barrier that required certain public officials to be members of the established Church.

?Finally, Tories the Duke of Wellington and Sir Robert Peel changed positions to support the Roman Catholic Relief Act of 1829?. (In other words, The Tory Parliamentary Party were ?persuaded? by their leaders/Party loyalty to vote for it.) ?This act removed many of the remaining substantial restrictions on Roman Catholics throughout the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.?

On this day, September 22, 1761 ~ The Coronation of King George III and Queen Charlotte of the United Kingdom at Westminster Abbey

I feel a bit sorry for Charlotte. She was not unintelligent but she just didn?t seem able to cope at all with George?s insanity and ended up terrified of him. Admittedly mental health conditions were not well understood even in the later 18th century, the so-called ?Age of Enlightenment?. It came down to very odd and unpredictable behaviour that couldn?t be reasoned with.

Charlotte lived at Windsor, near George III but not too close, with her daughters cooped up with her in a sort of nunnery situation. I believe she didn?t want any of them to marry because that would mean being left alone near HIM, ?the Madman in the Attic.? She and they, did escape regularly to London, Bath and seaside resorts and to see her sons and their brothers regularly but I think she regarded it all as chaotic and unpleasant.

This is a reasonably accurate summing-up of the situation, in spite of the stupid and misleading title of the piece. .

?Queen Charlotte: A Bridgerton Story?: The Truth Behind the Real-Life Queen Charlotte and King George III?s Troubled Romance | Vogue (https://www.vogue.com/article/queen-charlotte-king-george-romance-true-story#:~:text=Hadlow%20writes%20that%2C%20during%20this),1795%2C%201801%2C%20and%201805.&text=By%201810%2C%20George%20showed%20signs,few%20years%2C%20possibly%20even%20dementia.

If Queen Charlotte had allowed her daughters to marry foreign royals, then she could visit her daughters and sons-in-law and therefore not always be in England.

Quote from: LouisFerdinand on October 21, 2023, 10:55:12 PM
If Queen Charlotte had allowed her daughters to marry foreign royals, then she could visit her daughters and sons-in-law and therefore not always be in England.

This article gives the reasons succinctly and well, I think. A couple of them formed romantic attachments to courtiers of various ages. One supposedly had a child. Several did marry later, two in middle age though Amelia, King George?s favourite, died single and quite young. And those that married late remained childless.

?A parcel of old maids? - The daughters of George III - History of Royal Women (https://www.historyofroyalwomen.com/charlotte-princess-royal/parcel-old-maids-daughters-george-iii/)

The question of the princesses? marriages was something of a taboo subject in the royal household. The King had already stated of his daughters ?I cannot deny that I have never wished to see any of them marry: I am happy in their company, and do not in the least want a separation.? George III had suffered from his first bout of mental illness in 1765, and although he recovered, he suffered several recurrences throughout his reign. Queen Charlotte, in an attempt to keep her husband?s mind calm and undisturbed, discouraged any mention of his daughters marrying. In fact, the Queen herself was opposed to the idea of losing any of her daughters to marriage, particularly as the King?s illness progressed, and she found herself without company except that of the princesses.

?Princess Elizabeth, for example, on meeting her suitor Prince Frederick of Hesse-Homburg when they were both well into middle-age, is said to have stated: ?If he is single, I will marry him?. As Frederick was not considered attractive, nor was his rank equal to hers, it is likely that this was an expression of her (and in all likelihood her sisters?) willingness to accept any suitor as an opportunity to escape the rigidity of lives, which had been restrictive and cloistered, even by the standards of the time.?

Quote from: LouisFerdinand on November 23, 2023, 08:00:43 PM

Prince George (King George IV) would not even allow his wife Princess Caroline   
to go on a trip without his permission.

how would he stop her?  he and Caroline idd not live together after the first few months of their marriage. 

Quote from: LouisFerdinand on January 09, 2024, 08:20:16 PM

Caroline of Brunswick was the wife of George, The Prince of Wales (King George IV).   
Whenever Princess Caroline was nice to one of her parents, the other parent would become angry at her.

I don?t believe a lot of things that are alleged online about historical figures.

I happen to have one of the standard bios on Caroline and that hasn?t come up in my reading of her family background. Her parents were strict with her because (a) it was a cultured court and she was inclined to vulgarities. (B) In her teens she was a bit of a flirt with young officers and being regarded as flirtatious in that way was not considered as applicable to her station and (c) even as a child she was disinclined to bathe regularly or change any underwear or other clothing that had become smelly. No doubt she had many other virtues, she was not pompous or cold for instance, but that doesn?t negate her bad points.

Quote from: LouisFerdinand on January 20, 2024, 11:54:09 PM

Why was King George I a most hated sovereign?     
The MOST HATED KING | King George I | History Documentary - YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVSIP7BKlzA)

This ridiculous documentary states that King George I was the ?most hated monarch? in British history. Well, he wasn?t. Not by a long chalk. If English history is included then King John, Richard III and James II would probably come to mind. And George IV was certainly non too popular. At several points during his reign the country was near to revolution (though to be fair this was mainly due to repressive government measures.)

George I was certainly disliked by the Jacobites, whose activities continued in his son?s reign, but Protestant England was greatly satisfied that there were to be no more RC monarchs on the throne.

George I divorced and banished his wife in a cruel manner, preventing their two children from ever seeing her again while he was still Elector of Hanover, had a distant relationship with his son the future George II at least partly because of that,  could scarcely speak a word of English and preferred Hanover.

However the population didn?t really care. The remaining Stuarts were RC and living on the Continent and could stay there. So most hated monarch George I was most certainly not.

Quote from: LouisFerdinand on March 27, 2024, 08:32:31 PM

Queen Charlotte had a zebra that grazed outside of Buckingham Palace.
  She had an elephant which resided with the horses in the stables.

I find the elephant story very hard to believe, actually, especially as many horses are easily spooked. Admittedly there were several private zoos and exotic animals held on the estates of noble families in Britain and Europe before the mid 19th century when municipal zoos started to become popular. I believe the Duchess of York, the estranged wife of George and Charlotte's second son, had quite a menagerie at her estate, Bushey Park, but the Duke couldn't stand the mess and noise, one of the reasons he moved out.  The Tower of London had a menagerie for centuries until the idea of animals being kept in unsuitable conditions became of concern.

King George IV's sword made for his historic visit to Edinburgh in 1822 and jacket the monarch wore for iconic portrait go on display alongside baby shoes worn by his only child -

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13227607/Sword-King-George-IV-baby-shoes.html

Quote from: LouisFerdinand on April 04, 2024, 07:53:59 PM

At one point it was assumed that Princess Charlotte of Wales would become engaged to Prince William of Orange and that they would be married.
  http://www.baldwin.co.uk/product/george-iii-princess-charlotte-of-wales-betrothal-to-prince-william-of-orange-ae-medal-1814

She didn't fancy him is the long and short of it. He wasn't her to her taste, to the annoyance of that moral arbiter of lawful marriage her father, King George IV. As William turned out to be a bit of a yobbo on his visit to London George didn't press it.