History Nerds Thread

[Blergh]

1 hour ago, Is Everyone Gone said:

Another thing about George III's kids was William IV was in a long relationship with actress Dorothea Bland aka Mrs. Jordan. They had 10 kids! 

And since George III's 4th son William had been made the Duke of Clarence, this meant that the surname he bestowed the 10 kids was Fitz-Clarence. BTW, they stayed in his life long after he broke up with their mother called Mrs. Jordan and after he married the 25-year-old  Princess Adelheid of Saxe-Meiningen (later known as Queen Adelaide), she  welcomed them into their home including after the Duke of Clarence became King at age 65! This somewhat irked Vic's widowed mother the Duchess of Kent and this was the excuse she gave as to why she wouldn't let Vic (William's heiress) spend time with the other family (though it's likely that she didn't want anyone besides herself to influence Vic OR for Vic to let slip how their own household was faring).

However, one significant thing about William IV's nonmarital offspring was that he DID legally acknowledge them as his and he tried his best during his reign  to find his sons the best positions and his daughters the most adventageous marriages . Moreover, he'd wind up the LAST British monarch to date to legally acknowledge the nonmarital offspring that had been conceived.

Yes, in spite of Edward VII being even more openly. ..randy than his 'Wicked [Great]Uncles',he never acknowledged any offspring who might have been conceived with one of his flings!

[tearknee]

What do the descendants of William IV do today?

 

 

 

Edited March 12 by tearknee

[Blergh]

On 3/11/2025 at 9:22 PM, tearknee said:

What do the descendants of William IV do today?

 

 

 

OK, your question sent me to do a 'seminar' with Prof. Wiki and among the thing I found out was that the future William IV and 'Mrs. Jordan' wound up naming  9 of their 10 children after the Duke of Clarence's OWN siblings. - and his co-parent had had no fewer than four previous offspring by previous paramours!

Anyway, one of the Duke of Clarence's other titles had been 'Earl of Munster' [ a region and onetime kingdom in the current Republic of Ireland- NOT having anything to do with the 1960's movie monster spoof sitcom]. OK, after George IV ('Prinny') died in 1830- and Duke of Clarence his eldest surviving brother succeeded as William IV at age 65, His Majesty arranged it that his eldest nonmarital son George Fitzclarence[yes, one of the nine named after sibs] would succeed him as 'Earl of Munster'  and even authorized him to use the Royal Coat of Arms though altered with a diagonal 'sash' to denote that line's non-marital origins. Funny enough, though, William IV HAD been in the Royal Navy as Duke of Clarence, he had the 'sash' decorated with anchors to highlight his descendants personal link to him.  OK, the first Fitzclarence Earl of Munster tragically took his own life at age 48. However, he had surviving sons and the line of the Earls of Munster would last  through seven Earls [five generations] until the last direct male heir died in 2000 (who has two surviving daughters and grandchildren) having been a member of the House of Lords until 1999!  Yes, William IV  and 'Mrs. Jordan' had other sons but none of them had surviving children as well as some daughters who DO have living descendants.

It also needs to be said that (as Duke of Clarence) he DID have two marital daughters by the Duchess Adelaide- Princess Charlotte and Princess Elizabeth of Clarence but, tragically both of these daughters died in infancy then afterwards their twin sons were stillborn  .Poor Adelaide would have no more children . However, despite her losses, she  would dote on Vic during her early childhood until Vic's mother the Duchess of Kent somewhat iced things to keep her from having influence -especially since Adelaide tried to warn the Duchess about Conroy possibly getting too much power and the Duchess didn't like to be told what she didn't want to hear).

I hope this satisfies!

Edited March 14 by Blergh

[tearknee]

The House of Plantagenet has descendants in Australia because their men couldn't keep their penis inside. This random six-year-old girl would be "Princess Isabelle" if the House was still reigning according to the news report!

[Is Everyone Gone]

Some fun trivia: as her marriage deteriorated and George's mental illness worsened, Queen Charlotte did what any aristocratic woman would do with a troubled marriage: she built herself a new house and retreated there. The house is Frogmore Cottage, which was briefly the home of the Sussexes.

Back then, rich women didn't get divorced, they just decamped to another mansion. Marie Antoinette also had her own house on the grounds of Versailles where she lived with her lover.

[Blergh]

Place names often have had unexpected meanings/origins and Frogmore is no exception. The house (and nearby mausoleum that house Vic and Al) sit in a swampy part of the Windsor Estate that had (and still has) a large number of FROGS!

BTW, Windsor itself evidently started out as the name of a spot on the Thames River shore that had a small bluff with a winch to safely hoist cargo from river boats to the shore. .IOW, a winch-shore. Well, due to that riverside bluff happening to be adjacent to a bend in England's most prominent river, William the Conqueror decided that this would be a good spot to build the first tower of what would become a huge complex of buildings and grounds which have been favored by the British Royals (and tourists) for centuries. Hence, when George V decided that mounting anti-German xenophobia  during the Great War on the part of his subjects made the dynastic name of Saxe-Coburg Gotha a constant reminder of the family's German origins, he opted to change the dynastic name (as well as their seldom used surname of Wettin) to Windsor! 'I may be uninsipring but I'll be damned if I'm an alien!'

[Is Everyone Gone]

I must admit Frogmore Cottage looks rather humble for a queen's retreat. But I guess by then Charlotte had so many pressing worries.

 

[Blergh]

Queen Charlotte (1744-1818) was usually a sympathetic in character (e.g. having developed a warm friendship with the doomed Marie Antoinette solely via correspondence).

However, she did have her faults. Not only did she treat her unmarried daughters like her personal slaves and kept them cooped up until their own middle ages. She was SO indulgent to Prinny that when George III showed his support for his wronged niece/daughter-in-law Caroline as the mother of his newborn heiress granddaughter, the usually prim and proper Charlotte actually openly supported the blatantly adultrous Prinny AND his current mistress Lady Jersey (who'd been made Caroline's Lady of the Bedchamber - which soon prompted  Caroline would make ribald jokes about at Lady Jersey's expense to Prinny's fury with Lady Jersey taking umbrage).

[Is Everyone Gone]

1 hour ago, Blergh said:

Queen Charlotte (1744-1818) was usually a sympathetic in character (e.g. having developed a warm friendship with the doomed Marie Antoinette solely via correspondence).

However, she did have her faults. Not only did she treat her unmarried daughters like her personal slaves and kept them cooped up until their own middle ages. She was SO indulgent to Prinny that when George III showed his support for his wronged niece/daughter-in-law Caroline as the mother of his newborn heiress granddaughter, the usually prim and proper Charlotte actually openly supported the blatantly adultrous Prinny AND his current mistress Lady Jersey (who'd been made Caroline's Lady of the Bedchamber - which soon prompted  Caroline would make ribald jokes about at Lady Jersey's expense to Prinny's fury with Lady Jersey taking umbrage).

I feel like most people's knowledge of Queen Charlotte nowadays comes from that Netflix miniseries.

George III's mental breakdowns were truly terrifying though, so my sympathies to Charlotte. Apparently it was intimated that he became sexually violent. Charlotte refused to be alone with him, such was her fear.

[Blergh]

18 hours ago, Is Everyone Gone said:

I feel like most people's knowledge of Queen Charlotte nowadays comes from that Netflix miniseries.

George III's mental breakdowns were truly terrifying though, so my sympathies to Charlotte. Apparently it was intimated that he became sexually violent. Charlotte refused to be alone with him, such was her fear.

I'm not unsympathetic to Queen Charlotte. In addition to her union's sad ending in limbo, she had been yanked from an quiet court in a rather obscure domain in Germany shortly after her own widowed mother's passing when she was just seventeen to marry the awkward George III.Then,  after their quick wedding and coronation was essentially cut off from everyone outside a tiny court circle by George and his rather bitter widowed mother Augusta, the Princess Dowager of Wales (who herself had been married at sixteen to George II's eldest,loathed son Frederick, Prince of Wales only to be deprived of being Queen Consort via her rather browbeating spouse's early death and likely resented that Charlotte got to be Queen Consort the minute she married George-  technically outranking her).  Then, of course she had back to back babies ASAP until she was a mother of fifteen by the time of their youngest baby Amelia's birth in 1783. .then sadly would outlive her two youngest sons as well as Amelia herself while she had to deal with her own spouse having become completely incompatible to live with for roughly the last two decades of her life.  Lastly almost a year to the day before her own death, her namesake granddaughter Princess Charlotte of Wales and the latter's potential son died as a result of a horrific childbirth (since there were signs the latter was still viable until roughly two hours before he was brought forth stillborn).

And while genealogists know that at least one ancestress was recorded as having been 'Moorish', this ancestress had lived four centuries earlier so it's very unlikely that Charlotte would have resembled the performer playing her in the recent series series.

[tearknee]

"And while genealogists know that at least one ancestress was recorded as having been 'Moorish', this ancestress had lived four centuries earlier so it's very unlikely that Charlotte would have resembled the performer playing her in the recent series."

 

The ideological desperation to provide "role models" angers me (see modern-ish made WW1 movies where women who were nurses are treated as 100% having internalized misogyny compared to the "Bob" from Blackadder types that are the protagonists). 

[Blergh]

^?

[tearknee]

2 hours ago, Blergh said:

^?

I'm criticizing what you also have done -- Androzani dot com (run by feminist DW fans) makes the same point you did - here, here, and here, for example - history altered to make it more palatable (or a companion does stuff such as tries to raise Gwyneth's consciousness with no regard for her and Sneed's different circumstances)

Edited March 18 by tearknee

[Blergh]

AFIAC, if someone wants to have the outward appearance of a completely fictional character altered in a newer adaptation from the original inception, that's fine. Let the audiences individually decide for themselves the later production's merits since by definition  a fictional character can be appear as per the beholder's imagination.

However, although this production is supposed to be loosely based on the lives of George III and Charlotte of Great Britain, I think at the very least there needs to be a disclaimer spelling out that the performer's appearance is NOT an accurate depiction of Her Majesty as far as contemporary accounts,paintings,etc. have indicated. IMO, it's somewhat akin to those  depictions of the Tudors which have Catherine of Aragon having dark brown hair and eyes when she was known to have had auburn hair and blue eyes.

OK, to try to bring some levity back to this thread.

It seems in the early 1930's a courtier in the know had heard about the future Edward VIII's infatuation with the still-married Wallis Warfield Simpson and George V's annoyance with the above. Anyway, the courtier tried to console the monarch with 'God send the Prince a better companion!'

However, George V  had no illusions about his eldest son and heir got to the root of the matter, 'God send the companion a better Prince, then we'd be rid of her!'

[Is Everyone Gone]

21 hours ago, Blergh said:

 

However, although this production is supposed to be loosely based on the lives of George III and Charlotte of Great Britain, I think at the very least there needs to be a disclaimer spelling out that the performer's appearance is NOT an accurate depiction of Her Majesty as far as contemporary accounts,paintings,etc. have indicated. IMO, it's somewhat akin to those  depictions of the Tudors which have Catherine of Aragon having dark brown hair and eyes when she was known to have had auburn hair and blue eyes.

Apparently, the Queen Charlotte miniseries was inspired by Harry and Meghan. 

But back to Catherine of Aragon, it's doubly ironic bc her appearance was often compared to Anne's. Anne did have dark hair and dark eyes and a somewhat olive complexion, while Catherine conformed more to the contemporary standards of beauty with the reddish hair and blue eyes.

Also, because I love the Tudors era, some historians think that Henry might have had an STD that he passed onto his wives, which accounts for their decreased fertility.

[Blergh]

As long as we're talking Tudor, while undoubtedly Elizabeth was a very dynamic, shrewd monarch with a strong love for her nation, she was not perfect or flawless.

Perhaps one of the more frustrating things she did or didn't do was fulfill her elder half-sis Mary's  dying wish- being reunited with her own mother Catherine of Aragon in death since the two had been so cruelly torn apart by Henry while has trying to get his first union annulled by the Pope.  I know that Elizabeth had no love lost for Mary (and for good reason). However, Elizabeth herself had lost her own mother at a very early age after Henry's execution of Anne Boleyn (and Anne's remains were buried beneath the Tower church and only vaguely identified in the 19th century with a plaque to mark the approximate spot) so it wouldn't have been impossible for Elizabeth to have considered having some empathy for her sister's poignant last wish.

However, Elizabeth ignored this (as have all subsequent monarchs including the openly Catholic James II). Thus Catherine of Aragon remains buried beneath the floor of Peterborough Cathedral while Mary herself is buried beneath Westminster Abbey- not too far from Elizabeth herself as well as their cousin Mary, Queen of Scots (who both loathed and dreaded the possibility of her succeeding them but would never meet). At least none of them are anywhere near Henry who's buried beneath St. George's Chapel at Windsor Castle so maybe that's a relief to them.

[Is Everyone Gone]

21 hours ago, Blergh said:

As long as we're talking Tudor, while undoubtedly Elizabeth was a very dynamic, shrewd monarch with a strong love for her nation, she was not perfect or flawless.

Perhaps one of the more frustrating things she did or didn't do was fulfill her elder half-sis Mary's  dying wish- being reunited with her own mother Catherine of Aragon in death since the two had been so cruelly torn apart by Henry while has trying to get his first union annulled by the Pope.  I know that Elizabeth had no love lost for Mary (and for good reason). However, Elizabeth herself had lost her own mother at a very early age after Henry's execution of Anne Boleyn (and Anne's remains were buried beneath the Tower church and only vaguely identified in the 19th century with a plaque to mark the approximate spot) so it wouldn't have been impossible for Elizabeth to have considered having some empathy for her sister's poignant last wish.

However, Elizabeth ignored this (as have all subsequent monarchs including the openly Catholic James II). Thus Catherine of Aragon remains buried beneath the floor of Peterborough Cathedral while Mary herself is buried beneath Westminster Abbey- not too far from Elizabeth herself as well as their cousin Mary, Queen of Scots (who both loathed and dreaded the possibility of her succeeding them but would never meet). At least none of them are anywhere near Henry who's buried beneath St. George's Chapel at Windsor Castle so maybe that's a relief to them.

I think in fairness to Elizabeth that she considered a Westminister Abbey burial to be an honor. 

But the sisters had an extremely difficult relationship, made worse by the big age gap, the differing religions, and the fact that Mary considered Elizabeth to be a bastard. They did have a form of love for each other, but it was not very functional.

Something about Elizabeth that I've always liked was that she remained close to Anne Boleyn's relatives and showed them favor.

[Blergh]

As I said, I know that these half-sibs had serious . .issues but I don't think it would have hurt anything had Elizabeth buried Mary with Catherine of Aragon- even if it meant that either Catherine got moved to Westminster or Mary got fetched to Peterborough or the two of them were just in the same yard.

Yes, it's true that Elizabeth showed some of her maternal relatives favor. However, others she wasn't crazy about. For instance her 1st cousin once-removed Lettice Knollys (1543-1634) [Anne's great-niece] incurred Elizabeth's wrath after she married one of Elizabeth's favorites Robert Dudley [each for the 2nd time] and banished her from court from that point on. Lettice also happened to be the mother of Robert Devereaux by her 1st husband- better known as the Earl of Essex who was ANOTHER of Elizabeth's faves (until his 1601 execution)  but even that wouldn't be enough to get Elizabeth to soften her stance. However, it wound up that Lettice would survive three husbands and all her children but would live to 91 and have lots of grandchildren. BTW, there has been some speculation that Lettice's mother Catherine wasn't just Anne's niece but might have been one of Henry's nonmarital daughters though Mary Boleyn was married to someone else at the time. Regardless of whether they were solely maternally or possibly maternally AND paternally related to each other, they were related to each other,  paintings of Lettice showed a somewhat strong resemblance to Elizabeth herself.

Edited March 23 by Blergh

[Is Everyone Gone]

5 minutes ago, Blergh said:

As I said, I know that these half-sibs had serious . .issues but I don't think it would have hurt anything had Elizabeth buried Mary with Catherine of Aragon- even if it meant that either Catherine got moved to Westminster or Mary got fetched to Peterborough or the two of them were just in the same yard.

Yes, it's true that Elizabeth showed some of her maternal relative favor. However, others she wasn't crazy about. For instance her 1st cousin once-removed Lettice Knollys (1543-1634) [Anne's great-niece] incurred Elizabeth's wrath after she married one of Elizabeth's favorites Robert Dudley [each for the 2nd time] and banished her from court from that point on. Lettice also happened to be the mother of Robert Devereaux- better known as the Earl of Essex who was ANOTHER of Elizabeth's faves (until his 1601 execution)  but even that wouldn't be enough to get Elizabeth to soften her stance. However, it wound up that Lettice would survive three husbands and all her children but would live to 91 and have lots of grandchildren. BTW, there has been some speculation that Lettice's mother Catherine wasn't just Anne's niece but might have been one of Henry's nonmarital daughters though Mary Boleyn was married to someone else at the time. Regardless of how strongly they were related to each other,  paintings of Lettice showed a somewhat strong resemblance to Elizabeth herself.

I think Dudley was Elizabeth's great love, if she had one. Though their long relationship had its ups and downs they remained close, and she was devastated when he passed away. She kept his final letter to her by her bedside and labeled it HIS LAST LETTER and she never parted with it.

Idk, I tend to be pro-Liz. She could be vain, and she could be coldly ruthless (like her imprisoning Mary, Queen of Scots for so many years), but she was also extremely intelligent and definitely a greater person and ruler than her father.

I also think her childhood traumatized her and she had lifelong trust issues. And there are so many details about her that just make me sad. Like the fact that she wore this ring of her mother and her for her entire life.

[Blergh]

I wonder when Elizabeth had that that ring made since not only did her own mini-portrait depict her as she was no earlier than the 1570's in term of style but more importantly (and horribly) Henry had done his best to erase ALL images of his onetime 2nd wife Anne. He went so far as to erase all the those decorations in Hampton Court that had included her initial (and had done the same to Catherine after their split). However, lucky for history, the workmen 'missed' one or two of the above in rather tough to find spots.

Speaking of Dudley, though. One thing about Robert Dudley that gets overlooked is that was by no means the first time that a member of his family had had a close tie to a monarch. Specifically, his younger brother Guilford had been the husband of the Nine-Day Queen herself- Lady Jane Grey. The younger Mr. Dudley had not only had had his and Lady Jane's union arranged rather hastily while Edward VI was dying so both their fathers could take advantage of  their children's bond and be the potential powers behind the throne but they spent only a very short time together (barely any time before the Nine Days then the 9 days themselves) before Mary not only successfully fought and overthrew this cousin's reign but also immediately had them imprisoned in very separate quarters in the Tower [with NO conjugal visits whatsoever allowed ] prior to their executions a year later. Yeah, Mary wasn't taking any chances of a possible rival line being made from these two!

BTW, it should be noted that the staunchly Catholic Mary DID offer the young girl a chance to have her life spared IF she renounced her Protestant faith and became a nun [which would have also prevented a rival line]but the committed Protestant Jane refused.

Regardless (or perhaps because) of his younger brother having run fatally afoul of her half-sister, Elizabeth quickly picked him out and would elevate him as her favorite.

[Is Everyone Gone]

8 hours ago, Blergh said:

I wonder when Elizabeth had that that ring made since not only did her own mini-portrait depict her as she was no earlier than the 1570's in term of style but more importantly (and horribly) Henry had done his best to erase ALL images of his onetime 2nd wife Anne. He went so far as to erase all the those decorations in Hampton Court that had included her initial (and had done the same to Catherine after their split). However, lucky for history, the workmen 'missed' one or two of the above in rather tough to find spots.

The likeness in the ring strongly resembles both the coin and the sketch thought to have been made in Anne's lifetime:

So my guess is Elizabeth found a true likeness of her mother and had the ring designed. 

Either way, the likenesses of Anne don't follow the Tudor "formula" of a portrait with the small eyes and the absurdly thin lips.

It is also possible that Elizabeth was said to strongly resemble Anne in face, so she simply asked one of Anne's relatives to style a portrait of her mother based on the contours of her own face.

Either way, it's a rather sad, human footnote for Elizabeth that she wore this ring and never took it off.

 

 

 

[Blergh]

12 hours ago, Is Everyone Gone said:

The likeness in the ring strongly resembles both the coin and the sketch thought to have been made in Anne's lifetime:

So my guess is Elizabeth found a true likeness of her mother and had the ring designed. 

Either way, the likenesses of Anne don't follow the Tudor "formula" of a portrait with the small eyes and the absurdly thin lips.

It is also possible that Elizabeth was said to strongly resemble Anne in face, so she simply asked one of Anne's relatives to style a portrait of her mother based on the contours of her own face.

Either way, it's a rather sad, human footnote for Elizabeth that she wore this ring and never took it off.

 

 

 

Now you've got me wondering if perhaps Mary herself might have worn a portrait of her own mother Catherine on her person but somehow this never got recorded or preserved.

 While Henry did his best to rid his domain of images of his earlier wives once disavowed them, Catherine had had lots of Continental supporters and relatives who'd have kept her image alive- including her nephew the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V./Charles I of Castille&Leon and Aragon who'd wind being Mary's father-in-law (possibly gifting a portrait of his aunt to his cousin/DIL as a wedding present).

[Is Everyone Gone]

On 3/21/2025 at 11:03 PM, Blergh said:

Now you've got me wondering if perhaps Mary herself might have worn a portrait of her own mother Catherine on her person but somehow this never got recorded or preserved.

 While Henry did his best to rid his domain of images of his earlier wives once disavowed them, Catherine had had lots of Continental supporters and relatives who'd have kept her image alive- including her nephew the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V./Charles I of Castille&Leon and Aragon who'd wind being Mary's father-in-law (possibly gifting a portrait of his aunt to his cousin/DIL as a wedding present).

I don't think Mary would have needed to wear a ring, because there were plenty of people willing to commission portraits of her mother. It's not like Elizabeth needing to hide a secret cameo of her mother in a ring.

Catherine's sisters all had pretty miserable outcomes. Juana of Castille married the handsome but feckless Philip and had a complete mental health breakdown after her husband died. Maria of Aragon gave birth to 10 children before the age of 34, and her body completely broke down and she died. Isabella's husband died in a riding accident. She seems to have suffered from a severe eating disorder and even after remarriage and pregnancy, continued to starve herself. She died when she was 18.

All of the sisters had their mother's religious fanaticism.

Edited March 23 by Is Everyone Gone

[Blergh]

One odd 'hanging thread' of Spanish history has to do with Isabel I's younger brother Alfonso who, after some Castillian subjects became dissatisfied with their elder half-bro Henry IV, overthrew the latter to have the 15-year-old Alfonso be the new King of Castile. While young Alfonso showed some disturbing signs including supposedly torturing animals (like young Ivan IV 'The Terrible' of Russia), he nonetheless had at least a few surviving coins made in his image before he suddenly died of still uncertain causes.  Then Henry was able re-assert his power while Isabel secretly negotiated with John II of Aragon a surprisingly lopsided marriage treaty which had John's only surviving son Ferdinand permanently move to Castile instead of the usual vice versa.

[Is Everyone Gone]

It's kind of ironic that historians are so kind towards Catherine of Aragon, praising her for her loyalty and piety. And ... she was those things, but in another world, she easily could have been the villain. She inherited her mother's religious fanaticism, and passed on that fanaticism to her daughter.

 

[Blergh]

1 hour ago, Is Everyone Gone said:

It's kind of ironic that historians are so kind towards Catherine of Aragon, praising her for her loyalty and piety. And ... she was those things, but in another world, she easily could have been the villain. She inherited her mother's religious fanaticism, and passed on that fanaticism to her daughter.

 

Agree! Of course, being a very charitable woman helped Catherine gain and maintain her popularity long after Henry's dumping of her. and even long after her death (and her daughter's . .. unpopular reign).

I mean, even the pro-Tudor Shakespeare treated her with complete sympathy in his play Henry VIII  as well as Henry himself and even Anne Boleyn (the mother of the beloved Elizabeth). .and somehow made the King's Great Matter and its outcome the entire 'fault' of the Catholic Cardinal Wolsey.  Of course, Cardinal Wolsey having been born a butcher's son but had climbed the clerical ranks to become the 2nd most powerful person in England somewhat became villainized due to him making a very showy spectacle of his acquired new wealth (e.g. Hampton Court Palace).