Rating the Monarchs of Britain: Now Disc. George III

Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by Zaz, May 27, 2009.

  1. Zaz Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 11, 1998
    star 9
    Okay, our next King is George II. He means nothing to most people, but under this King England would have its greatest success and an annus mirabilis, 1759, in which it became the strongest power in Europe.

    In order to explain British politics during this century, I have to explain European politics.

    This is best explained by noting the European wars of the period.

    Starting with the War of the Spanish Succession (1701-14):

    "The War of the Spanish Succession (1701?1714) was fought among several European powers, principally the Holy Roman Empire [basically Austria & Central Europe], Great Britain, the Dutch Republic, Portugal and the Duchy of Savoy, against the Kingdoms of France and Spain and the Electorate of Bavaria over a possible unification of the Kingdoms of Spain and France under one Bourbon monarch. Such a unification would have drastically changed the European balance of power. The war was fought mostly in Europe but included Queen Anne's War in North America and it was marked by the military leadership of notable generals including the duc de Villars, the Jacobite Duke of Berwick, the Duke of Marlborough and Prince Eugene of Savoy. It resulted in the recognition of Philip of France as King of Spain while requiring him to renounce any claim to the French throne and to cede much of the Spanish Crown's possessions to the Holy Roman Empire, the Dutch Republic, Savoy and Great Britain, partitioning the Spanish Empire in Europe.

    In 1700, Charles II, the last Spanish monarch of the House of Habsburg, died without issue, bequeathing his possessions to Philip, grandson of his half-sister and King Louis XIV of France. Philip thereby became Philip V of Spain and since he was also the younger son of the Dauphin of France, Philip was in the line of succession of the French throne. The specter of the multi-continental empire of Spain passing under the control of Louis XIV provoked a massive coalition of powers to oppose Philip's succession."

    This War showed the basic alignments; Britain and Austria against France and Spain. The War was long and costly, and the British & their allies won it, but Louis XIV's grandson did become King of Spain, though the crowns agreed not to merge, and Austria took Spain's European holdings. Why were the Brits involved at all? Because they feared France would dominate Europe if it took Spain, and this shows British thinking: no one country should be allowed to dominate at all--unless it was them. The British generally could be found supporting the weaker alliance in any War, because they feared the result of the stronger alliance winning. They also feared that if France became dominant, it would restore the Stuarts to the British throne (undoubtedly true).

    The next war was:

    "The War of the Austrian Succession (1740?1748), also known as King George's War in North America, and incorporating the War of Jenkins' Ear with Spain, involved nearly all the powers of Europe, except for the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, the Portuguese Empire and the Ottoman Empire. The war began under the pretext that Maria Theresa of Austria was ineligible to succeed to the Habsburg thrones of her father, Charles VI, because Salic law precluded royal inheritance by a woman, though in reality this was a convenient excuse put forward by Prussia and France to challenge Habsburg power. Austria was supported by Great Britain and the Dutch Republic, the traditional enemies of France, as well as the Kingdom of Sardinia and Saxony. France and Prussia were allied with the Electorate of Bavaria. The war ended with the Treaty of Aix-la-Chapelle in 1748. The most enduring military historical interest and importance of the war lies in the struggle of Prussia and the Habsburg monarchs for the region of Silesia."

    The Kingdom of Prussia started in 1701, and started a Northern German power (as opposed to Austria, the Southern German power). Concurrent to the War of the Spanish Succession was "Sweden's defeat by Russia, Saxony, Poland, Denmark?Norway, Hanover, and Prussia in the Great Northern War (1700?1721) [w
  2. Champion of the Force Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Dec 27, 1999
    star 4
    Fascinating stuff.

    It's almost embarrassing that the first I learnt of the Seven Years War was via the American viewpoint - specifically as part of the early career of George Washington, where it was called the French & Indian War. It was only when I was older that I found out that it was more on the periphery as far as events went, with the real action taking place in Europe.

    It's also startling when you consider these things happened less than 300 years ago, that wars and politics could swing around who was born to who and who was in line of succession - a completely different time and place compared to today where European royalty has been pretty much either a) eliminated, or b) reduced to ceremonial status only.
  3. Zaz Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 11, 1998
    star 9
    Yes, but it also took place in other parts of the world (and has thus been called 'the first world war')...I'll get to that. While the hugely outnumbered Frederick held the fort in Europe (by luck, grit & guile, and he had all of them), Britain did its part by fighting the French in North America (the 'French & Indian War') and in India, and at sea, and keeping them off his back.

    Thus he only had to deal with Russia, Austria, Sweden and Saxony. Luckily for him, the allies fought a lot among themselves, and didn't coordinate their efforts very well. Frederick would defeat (or lose to) one of them, and then have time to move on to another. Britain did provide some troops in Europe, but the Duke of Cumberland, their leader, wasn't up to the job. So George II asked for Frederick's brother-in-law, Ferdinand of Brunswick to command them. Frederick didn't want to comply, because he was short generals as good as Ferdinand, but he needed to placate the Brits, so they got their way. The result was a victory over France at the Battle of Minden, in Western Europe (1759).

    The military leadership of both France and Austria in the Seven Years' War was also poor. Austria had had the brilliant Prince Eugene of Savoy in the War of the Spanish Succession, and France had the equally brilliant Maurice de Saxe in the War of the Austrian Succession. But neither had anyone of Frederick's caliber in this War. Actually, to correct that, they did; but because the highly talented soldiers weren't nobles or princes, they couldn't advance in their armies. Thus the incompetent French Prince de Soubise was buttressed by a non-noble French officer, I forget his name. This stupid waste of talent was to burst out in the Napoleonic Wars (which are upcoming) when very low born Frenchman could and did become Marshals of France, a meritocracy at last.
  4. Champion of the Force Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Dec 27, 1999
    star 4
    I didn't mean to imply that events elsewhere didn't have an impact or weren't important - as you say they certainly were. Only that if you quizzed the average person about the 'Seven Years War' you'd probably draw blanks (or worse, assumptions that it was somehow related to the 'Hundred Years War' :oops: ), whereas mentioning the 'French & Indian War' you're more likely to get recognition, mainly thanks to it's backdrop for the career of George Washington. Kind of funny how twisted history can sometimes end up to future generations.

    As for it being the 'first world war', I'm almost certain I saw a book with that actual title once (something like '1759: World at War' or something) - I'll have to try and track it down. :)
  5. Zaz Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 11, 1998
    star 9
    The British defeated the French in India (under the command of Robert Clive) and in North America (under the command of James Wolfe). The French forces in both places were compromised by incompetence (in the case of India) and incompetence and corruption in the case of North America. (I'm speaking here of the Governor of New France, not General Montcalm).

    Meanwhile, Britain also seized French assets in the Caribbean, blockaded Europe with their navy, and won two major naval engagements in 1759--Lagos (which prevented a planned invasion of England) and Quiberon Bay.

    Just before the end of the War, in 1762, the British withdrew their subsidies from Prussia (nearly three quarters of a million pounds per year). George II had died in 1760, and this caused the British to be less supportive of the embattled Frederick (Frederick, the man who trusted no one and could be trusted by no one, once said he could trust his uncle's word), and now Frederick was hung out to dry. At the very last minute, Elizabeth of Russia also died. She was succeeded by her nutbar nephew, Peter III, an amateur soldier who greatly admired Frederick, and instructed his armies to switch sides and place themselves under the command of Frederick. Peter was almost immediately replaced by his wife, Catherine the Great, but luckily for Frederick, Catherine found letters from him to Peter, advising him to treat her better. She refused to support Frederick, but she did withdraw from the war.

    That left, guess who, Frederick and Maria Teresa nose-to-nose yet again. They had both gained some wisdom, because they made peace and Frederick kept Silesia, though the price had been horrendous. Frederick later wrote admiringly of his old adversary, and when trouble arose later in the century over the Bavarian Succession in 1778-9, they both agreed it was not worth a war over it. (In short: Austrian tried to annex Bavaria, but Frederick said he would go to war to prevent it, though by then he was elderly and in very poor health.) Maria Teresa overruled her son and co-ruler, Joseph I and her chief minister on this point, and secretly wrote to Frederick to try to settle it. They agreed on the continued independence of Bavaria, once Catherine the Great threatened to intervene on the side of Frederick in a way that scared off Joseph, and that was that.)

    So you see how the system worked. Not perfectly, but if any country got too strong, the others united against it; and if it got too weak, they partitioned, as they did with the Kingdom of Poland. Russia, Prussia and Austria partitioned Poland amongst themselves in a graduated way--three stages. Maria Teresa disliked the idea, but still took her share. She was absolutely right about it being a bad idea, as events were to prove. Frederick was also suspicious, but persuaded himself that he would give the Poles better government. This he did, but it did not console them for loss of national identity.

    The Seven Year's War left Britain as the chief winner, though at a huge financial cost--thus the taxes and removal of the French threat caused the American Revolution. And when Britain looked for allies at the time of that Revolution, nobody was interested. Prussia said no; the British had left them hanging in 1762. Austria and France and Russia laughed; in fact, the French sent a fleet to help the Americans. Not because they believed in their cause, but because they wanted to take down the Brits, who were considered too powerful. Of course, this had a high cost, and the debts from this intervention and the growth of Republicanism contributed to the French Revolution, and the rise of Napoleon.

    Napoleon would cause the rest of the powers in Europe to unite against him, including Britain, Austria, Russia, Spain, and Prussia. It took all of them to take him down.

    Irony: Napoleon was also a great admirer of Frederick the Great, and had read his history of the Seven Year's War (written in French; Frederick was a francophile.)
  6. Nevermind Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 14, 2001
    star 6
    Now we have the background, it's on to George II:

    King George II

    [image=http://www.bbc.co.uk/composers/handel/pictures/images/handel_07.jpg]

    Reign 11 June 1727 ? 25 October 1760
    Coronation 11 October 1727
    Predecessor George I
    Successor George III

    Prime Ministers:
    Robert Walpole
    Earl of Wilmington
    Henry Pelham
    Duke of Newcastle
    Duke of Devonshire

    Consort Caroline of Ansbach

    [image=http://www.explore-parliament.net/nssMovies/01/0152/0152_01.jpg]

    Issue
    Frederick, Prince of Wales
    Anne, Princess Royal, Princess of Orange
    Princess Amelia
    Princess Caroline
    Prince George William
    Prince William, Duke of Cumberland
    Princess Mary, Landgravine of Hesse
    Louise, Queen of Denmark and Norway

    Full name
    George Augustus
    German: Georg August
    House House of Hanover
    Father George I of Great Britain
    Mother Sophia Dorothea of Celle
    Born 10 November 1683(1683-11-10)
    Herrenhausen Palace, Hanover
    Died 25 October 1760 (aged 76)
    Kensington Palace, London
    Burial 11 November 1760
    Westminster Abbey, London

    Military service: Battle of Dettingen (1743)

    "George II, King of Great Britain and Ireland, the only son of King George I, was born in 1683. In 1705 he married Wilhelmina Caroline of Anspach. The early life of the queen was tragic. As a child her parents both died in separate incidents, consequently she was raised by her godmother the electress of Brandenburg and Queen of Prussia. There in Berlin, she received an unusual education. The electress was known as an ardent feminist and she passed these ideals along to her goddaughter.

    Caroline was considered a great beauty by the standards of the time. She had flaxen hair, blue eyes, flawless complexion and a short plump figure. At eighteen, she received her first suitor, Charles of Hapsburg, heir to the crown of Austria and considered the greatest catch in Europe. At first, the pair seemed a perfect match but she soon began to debate the young man over his religion. Princesses usually switched religion at a moments notice to gain a throne, but not Caroline. She argued and questioned his religious instructors until Charles finally left in disgust.George Augustus, the son of the elector of Hanover heard of Caroline's beauty and sent a courtier to see if she was a beautiful as rumored. The man reported that she was but George was still not satisfied and went to see for himself. He was evidently pleased because shortly thereafter the two were married and Caroline went to live in Hanover. [North and South Carolina are named after Caroline]

    In 1706 [George II] was created Earl of Cambridge. In 1708 he fought bravely at Oudenarde. At his father's accession to the English throne he was thirty-one years of age. He was already on bad terms with his father. The position of an heir-apparent is in no case an easy one to fill with dignity, and the ill-treatment of the prince's mother by his father was not likely to strengthen in him a reverence for paternal authority. It was most unwillingly that, on his first journey to Hanover in 1716, George I appointed the Prince of Wales guardian of the realm during his absence. In 1717 the existing ill-feeling ripened into an open breach. At the baptism of one of his children, the prince selected one godfather when the king persisted in selecting another. The young man spoke angrily, was ordered into arrest, and was subsequently commanded to leave St. James's and to be excluded from all court ceremonies. The prince took up his residence at Leicester House, and did everything in his power to support the opposition against his father's ministers.

    When therefore George I died in 1727, it was generally supposed that Robert Walpole would be at once dismissed. The first direction of the new king was that Sir Spencer Compton would draw up the speech in which he was to announce to the privy council his accession. Compton, not knowing how to set about his task, applied to Walpole for aid. Queen Caroline took advantage of this evidence of incapacity, advocated Walpole's cause with her husband and procured his continuance in office. This curious scene was indicative
  7. Nevermind Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 14, 2001
    star 6
    Part of the reason George II is dismissed by historians is that they rely too heavily on the memoirs of Hervey, a spiteful score-settler. For that reason, too, they dismiss his eldest son, Frederick, Prince of Wales.
  8. Nevermind Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 14, 2001
    star 6
    George's ability to get along with--though with explosions upon occasion--his Prime Ministers led to the annus mirabilis, 1759, the year in which Britain and Prussia defeated France, Spain, Austria, Sweden and Russia. Britain won Canada, several Caribbean islands (some of which they returned), India, the battle of Minden in Europe and two famous sea-battles.
  9. Rouge77 Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    May 11, 2005
    star 5
    Current Prince of Wales will be dismissed too if he would happen to die before getting to the throne. In a situation where the role of the hereditary ruler is diminished, the role of the heir is even more so. There's really no reason to remember Frederick Louis, he was just another aristocratic patron of the arts etc whose father and son happened to be kings.
  10. Nevermind Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 14, 2001
    star 6
    The curious thing was that George II and Frederick Louis were rather alike than not, despite the fact they hated each other.

    Frederick was more interested in the arts, as you say; and purchased several paintings still in the royal collections, including the superb Holbein portrait of Thomas, Duke of Norfolk.

    He was also a fan and promoter of cricket, of all things.
  11. Nevermind Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 14, 2001
    star 6
    Tonight the male version of "Mary, Queen of Scots", Charles Edward Stuart aka "Bonnie Prince Charlie"

    He wasn't particularly 'bonnie'; he wasn't really a Prince, and had he won back the UK, he would have balled things up in record time (he had a raging personality disorder and was an alcoholic), but yes, the historians, nimrods to a man, just lurve him.

  12. Nevermind Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 14, 2001
    star 6
    Charles Edward Stuart

    Jacobite pretender

    Pretendence 1 January 1766 ? 31 January 1788

    Predecessor James III and VIII

    Successor Henry IX

    Spouse Louise of Stolberg-Gedern

    Issue
    Charlotte Stuart, Duchess of Albany (illegitimate)

    Full name
    Charles Edward Louis John Casimir Silvester Severino Maria Stuart[1]

    Father James III

    Mother Maria Klementyna Sobieska

    Born 31 December 1720(1720-12-31)
    Palazzo Muti, Rome

    Died 31 January 1788 (aged 67)
    Palazzo Muti, Rome

    Burial St. Peter's Basilica, Vatican City

    Religion Roman Catholic

    "Charles Edward Louis John Casimir Silvester Severino Maria Stuart was born in Rome, Italy, on 31 December 1720, where his father had been given a residence by Pope Clement XI. He spent almost all his childhood in Rome and Bologna. Prince Charles Edward was the son of the Old Pretender, James Francis Edward Stuart, son of exiled Stuart King, James II and his second wife Mary of Modena. His father was called the 'Pretender' because many believed he was not the King's true son?to those who feared a Catholic dynasty in England, his birth had seemed too convenient and was viewed with great suspicion.[2]

    Perhaps strangely for a future "Scottish Hero," Prince Charles wasn't Scottish in the strictest sense. His mother, Maria Klementyna Sobieska, was a Polish noblewoman, the granddaughter of the Polish king John III Sobieski. His paternal grandmother, Maria of Modena, was Italian; and his paternal great-grandmother, Henrietta Maria of France, was a French Princess, making the young Stuart an unlikely candidate as a claimant to the throne by Stuart lineage."

    In fact, CE's childhood was pretty unhappy. His father wasn't a bad man, but his mother was a complete fool, and she abandoned her children for a nunnery early on. Current historians blame poor James for this, but what he could have done about it I don't know. As Charles grew older, he started showing the signs of (1) a personality disorder; and (2) alcoholism. He wanted to regain his father's throne, despite the fact that the Hanoverians were doing a far better job than the Stuarts had every done. However, out of sight, out of mind, and the Scots had an axe to grind, the Act of Union, which made them a part of Great Britain. Thus no Scottish parliament or Court.
  13. saturn5 Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Aug 28, 2009
    star 4
    The monarch we were certainly blessed to avoid! Thank god for the Duke of Cumberland, hail the conquering hero!
  14. Nevermind Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 14, 2001
    star 6
    The historians certainly don't agree with you, but I do.
  15. Nevermind Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 14, 2001
    star 6
    [image=http://www.art-prints-on-demand.com/kunst/cosmo_alexander/prince_charles_edward_stuart_s_hi.jpg]

    The 'Forty-Five'
    Main article: Jacobite rising of 1745
    Prince Charles Edward in the traditional Scottish attire

    "In December 1743, Charles's father named him Prince Regent, giving him authority to act in his name. Eighteen months later, he led a rising to restore his father to his thrones. Charles raised funds to fit out two ships: the Elisabeth, an old man-of-war of 66 guns, and the Doutelle (le Du Teillay) a small frigate of 16 guns, which successfully landed him and seven companions at Eriskay on 23 July 1745. Charles had hoped for support from a French fleet, but it was badly damaged by storms, and he was left to raise an army in Scotland.

    The Jacobite cause was still supported by many Highland clans, both Catholic and Protestant. Charles hoped for a warm welcome from these clans to start an insurgency by Jacobites throughout Britain, but there was no immediate response. Charles raised his father's standard at Glenfinnan and gathered a force large enough to enable him to march on Edinburgh, which quickly surrendered. On 21 September 1745, he defeated the only government army in Scotland at the Battle of Prestonpans and, by November, was marching south at the head of around 6,000 men. Having taken Carlisle, Charles's army progressed as far as Swarkestone Bridge in Derbyshire. Here, despite the objections of the Prince, the decision was made by his council to return to Scotland, largely because of the almost complete lack of support from English Jacobites that Charles had promised. By now, he was pursued by King George II's son, the Duke of Cumberland, who caught up with him at the Battle of Culloden on 16 April 1746."


    In fact, Charles had a problem: he needed French support, which was okay in Scotland, which had the tradition of the Auld Alliance. But in England, it brought back memories of the Glorious Revolution and the War of the Spanish Succession. Even the Scots weren't overly enthused with Charlie, despite the tradition that they all flocked to his banner. In fact, the Protestant lords often refused outright, and those that did played it safe. They sent one son to Charlie and one son to the government forces.

    The historians all say to a man that if Charles hadn't have turned around at Dunbar, and gone back to Scotland, he would have become King of England. Codswallop, say I. His army had come over the border with him, but when they saw the lack of enthusiasm, they began to wonder what the hell they were doing there. After all, their reason for supporting Charlie was to *separate* from England. It began to penetrate their noggins that if Charlie conquered England, they'd never see him again, other than to persecute them, which happened last time the Stuarts ruled both countries. It also occurred to them that Charlie had lied to them about French support--it didn't arrive as he had promised. In the end, they voted to return to Scotland, much to Charlie's fury. Once the decision was made, he pouted all the way. Charlie was a typical Stuart; he wasn't interested in Scotland except as a stepping-stone to England. When his army realized this, they were less interested in the uprising.
  16. Nevermind Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 14, 2001
    star 6
    "Ignoring the advice of his best commander, Lord George Murray, Charles chose to fight on flat, open, marshy ground where his forces would be exposed to superior government firepower. Charles commanded his army from a position behind his lines, where he could not see what was happening. Hoping Cumberland's army would attack first, he had his men stand exposed to Hanoverian artillery for twenty minutes before finally ordering an attack. The Jacobite attack, charging into the teeth of musket fire and grapeshot fired from the cannons, was uncoordinated and met little success.

    The Jacobites broke through the bayonets of the redcoats in one place, but they were shot down by a second line of soldiers, and the survivors fled. Cumberland's troops committed numerous atrocities as they hunted for the defeated Jacobite soldiers, earning him the title "the Butcher" from the Highlanders. Murray managed to lead a group of Jacobites to Ruthven, intending to continue the fight. However Charles, believing himself betrayed, had decided to abandon the Jacobite cause. James, the Chevalier de Johnstone, acted as Murray's Aide de Camp during the campaign and, for a brief spell, the Young Pretender's. He gives a first-hand account of these events in his "Memoir of the Rebellion 1745-1746".

    Bonnie Prince Charlie's subsequent flight has become the stuff of legend and is commemorated in the popular folk song "The Skye Boat Song" (lyrics 1884, tune traditional) and also the old Irish song Mo Ghile Mear by Seán Clárach Mac Domhnaill. Assisted by such loyal supporters as Flora MacDonald, who helped him escape pursuers on the Isle of Skye by taking him in a small boat disguised as her Irish maid, "Betty Burke,"[3][4] he evaded capture and left the country aboard the French frigate L'Heureux, arriving back in France in September. The cause of the Stuarts now lost, the remainder of his life was ? with a brief exception ? spent in exile."


    In fact, there were rumours that Charlie, being very ticked off at his 5,000 strong army (because they refused to continue the invasion of England), that he made sure they would suffer in the subsequent battle.

    Cumberland was by no means a good soldier. His first cousin, Frederick the Great of Prussia, did not want his services during the 7 Year's War. Yet he beat Charlie handily, which gives you some idea of Charlie's talent in the same area.

    Last battle on British land.
  17. Nevermind Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 14, 2001
    star 6
    Charlie could have tried to rally his men; instead he did what his father did...he ran for it, leaving the Highlanders and his army to bear the brunt of the consequences. The Scottish historians (like the Irish about Cromwell) complain bitterly about the Highlanders treatment by Cumberland. They were, of course, in full rebellion, and had invaded a country that they claimed they only wanted freedom from. In other words, don't do the crime if you can't do the time, and put a sock in it already. Cumberland wanted to discourage les autres, and he succeeded at that...there was never a major rebellion in Scotland thereafter. The government, with the connivance of the Scottish nobility, took the opportunity to get rid of the Highlanders. Culloden was the direct cause of the Highland 'clearances', whereby the crofters were evicted from their land in favour of sheep herding. The good landlords gave their former tenants the price of a ticket to North America; the bad ones left them to starve. The British army absorbed a lot of them, ironically.

    Charlie, after a certain time on the run, took ship for France, and found himself a Europe-wide celebrity, which typically went straight to his head. He treated the French King, his own father and brother with snotty arrogance, with the result that the French King expelled him from France, and his brother became a cardinal (without telling him) in the Catholic Church. Historians complain bitterly that Charlie's father and brother didn't tell him about it, but they didn't have to tolerate this silly nimrod's behaviour.

  18. Nevermind Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 14, 2001
    star 6
    Charlie then moved around, trying to drum up support for another try. Every time some other European power wanted to embarrass the UK, they announced support for the Young Pretender. France considered it during the 7 Year's War (in 1759), but Charlie was so irritating, they abandoned the idea. Charlie wouldn't co-operate: he hated people who 'gave him laws' (ie. told him what to do) as he put it. You can imagine what a king he'd have been. :p

    He refused to see his father again, and never did. When his father died in 1766, he became de jure King of England and went to Rome to claim his status. He also married, the very obscure Louise of Stolberg, who was 32 years his junior.

    [image=http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_vgOP-4Ys7_U/S-HJaZyl9UI/AAAAAAAAA2E/_C7ngZVak4Q/s1600/Louise%252C_Countess_d%2527Albany.jpg] Louise of Stolberg

    By this time, besides having a personality disorder, Charles was a full-blown alcoholic. It ended as you might have expected, with Louise having an affair and fleeing to a convent. Charles was fat, bloated and pimply: no trace of the "Bonnie Prince" remained; and his personality was equally unattractive.

    [image=http://www.bbc.co.uk/scotland/education/as/jacobites/images/portrait_bpc.jpg] Not So Bonnie Prince Charlie, the Not-So-Young Pretender

    He and Louise had no children, and after they separated, Charlie summoned his illegitimate daughter, Charlotte, to care for him in his old age. He died in 1788, with only his younger brother, Henry, Cardinal of York, to succeed him.

    [image=http://www.biographicon.com/images/CharlotteStuart.jpg] Charlotte Stuart

    Charlotte had three illegitimate children by the Archbishop de Rohan--a son and two daughters. She died shortly after her father, and until recently it was supposed that none of her children had any descendants.

    However, Marie Victoire de Rohan is claimed to have had Polish descendants (Charles Edward was half Polish) including some alive today.

    [image=http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/60/Marie-Victoire_Princess_de_Rohan.jpg/130px-Marie-Victoire_Princess_de_Rohan.jpg] Marie Victoire de Rohan
  19. Darth_Asabrush Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    May 21, 2000
    star 5
    I wish I had returned earlier. I would have liked to comment of the "Edwards" and Wessex kings :(

    There have been plenty of pretenders. "Bonnie" Prince Charlie is just a vehicle for anti-English sentiment by a nationalist Scottish population (all imho of course).
  20. Nevermind Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 14, 2001
    star 6
    This is why Charlie's support started to evaporate as soon as he invaded England.
  21. CloneUncleOwen Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 30, 2009
    star 4
    [image=http://www.scotclans.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/bonnie.jpg]

    The Skye Boat Song
  22. Darth_Asabrush Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    May 21, 2000
    star 5
    The Prentender isn't a Monarch so I shan't rate him.
  23. Nevermind Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 14, 2001
    star 6
    I will rate George II, though: 8/10

    The odd thing is that historians *do* rate Charles Edward; they think he would have been better than the Hanoverians, without the slightest shred of evidence, and plenty of information that would make it unlikely.

    Okay: Another Sidebar

    Frederick Louis, Prince of Wales.

    [image=http://www.berkshirehistory.com/bios/images/fredpofw.jpg]

    Usually dismissed in history books with this jingle:

    "Here lies poor Fred who was alive and is dead,
    Had it been his father I had much rather,
    Had it been his sister nobody would have missed her,
    Had it been his brother, still better than another,
    Had it been the whole generation, so much better for the nation,
    But since it is Fred who was alive and is dead,
    There is no more to be said!"

    Which is unfair. Born in 1707, Frederick was left alone in Hanover when his family went to England in 1714, to show the flag there. Thus he was raised by a great-uncle, and formed no bond with his parents. This may have been his grandfather's intent. In any case, he did not see them again until his grandfather's death in 1727. He was then 19 years old, and like most 19 year olds, he was flip and rebellious. His parents were both disappointed and angry, not understanding that under his affectations, Fred was nervous and anxious in their presence. Because there was no emotional bond between them, they also didn't have the ability to see that Fred was actually quite similar to his father. They started a feud with him that did little credit to either George II, Queen Caroline, and Fred himself (who had at least the excuse of being very young at the time.) The situation was made worse by that spiteful creep, Lord Hervey, who had been an ally of Fred, then turned against him. It is from Hervey that most of the bad news about Fred derives, and he delighted in making trouble against him with his parents. The truth was that Fred was rather more interesting and able than their favoured younger son, William of Cumberland.

    Fred had a good eye for paintings and purchased several masterpieces for the Crown, most notably the magnificent Holbein of Thomas Howard, Duke of Norfolk (virtually priceless today).

    [image=http://cache2.artprintimages.com/p/LRG/29/2933/9HERD00Z/art-print/hans-holbein-the-younger-portrait-of-thomas-howard-1539.jpg]

    He also sponsored cricket matches (he was a fan) and fetes (the song "Rule, Britannia" was written for one of them), and like his father, he was uxorious. He had a large family--five sons and four daughters--and was devoted to them. He died young (possibly of porphyria, which would afflict his son George), aged 44. His father outlived him by nine years.


  24. Nevermind Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 14, 2001
    star 6
    Next: George III

    [image=http://southcarolina1670.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/king-george-iii.jpg]

    Reign 25 October 1760 ? 29 January 1820
    Coronation 22 September 1761
    Predecessor George II
    Successor George IV
    Regent George, Prince Regent (1811?1820)
    Prime Ministers

    * Duke of Newcastle
    Earl of Bute
    George Grenville
    Marquess of Rockingham
    Earl of Chatham
    Duke of Grafton
    Lord North
    Earl of Shelburne
    Duke of Portland
    William Pitt the Younger
    Henry Addington
    Lord Grenville
    Spencer Perceval
    Earl of Liverpool

    Consort Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz
    Issue
    George IV
    Prince Frederick, Duke of York
    William IV
    Charlotte, Princess Royal, Queen of Württemberg
    Prince Edward, Duke of Kent
    Princess Augusta Sophia
    Princess Elizabeth
    Ernest Augustus I of Hanover
    Prince Augustus Frederick, Duke of Sussex
    Prince Adolphus, Duke of Cambridge
    Princess Mary, Duchess of Gloucester
    Princess Sophia
    Prince Octavius
    Prince Alfred
    Princess Amelia

    Full name
    George William Frederick
    House House of Hanover
    Father Frederick, Prince of Wales
    Mother Augusta of Saxe-Gotha
    Born 4 June 1738 [N.S.][1]
    Norfolk House, St. James's Square, London
    Died 29 January 1820(1820-01-29) (aged 81)
    Windsor Castle

    The longest-reigning king (sixty years) in English history, George was the first Hanoverian born in Britain. Because his father, Frederick, Prince of Wales, and his grandfather, King George II, didn't get on, George saw little of his grandparents or aunts and uncle. His parents were happily married, though, and had a large family (George had four sisters and four brothers).

    [image=http://www.boerner.net/jboerner/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/AyscoughGeorgeEdwardAugustus.jpg]

    Here's George, his next brother, Edward, and his tutor. The historians suggests that his parents preferred Edward, but it may be a little more complex than that. George was an attractive child, and Edward was the opposite (books speak of his rolling eyes, and 'loose mouth'). His parents, perhaps concerned about this, encouraged Edward, who was lively and precocious. George wasn't. Always a dutiful child, his worst habit was censoriousness; though very kind-hearted, he didn't always perceive the problems of his POV. This would prove disastrous with his children.

    George was only twelve when his father died; and his mother took over. Princess Augusta seems to have been a rather distant parent, and George came under the influence of Lord Bute, her advisor. Luckily Bute was a decent enough man, and didn't try to feather his nest.

    [image=http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_vgOP-4Ys7_U/S988RHVK9gI/AAAAAAAAAyk/vuSDJ8sWt-8/s1600/John_Stuart_Earl_of_Bute_by_Sir_Joshua_Reynolds.jpg]

    Lord Bute.

    George became king when his grandfather died in 1760; he was twenty-two. He was unmarried, and wanted to marry Lady Sarah Lennox, a great-granddaughter of Charles II. His mother disapproved of this, and arranged a marriage with a suitable German princess. Historians always state that Lady Sarah was beautiful, which isn't borne out by her portraits (she's pudding-faced).

    [image=http://www.drawingsandprints.com/Exhibitions/11192_bg.jpg]

    Lady Sarah's on the left; the boy is her cousin, Charles James Fox.


    Instead, George married Charlotte of Mecklenberg-Strelitz, whom he met on the wedding day. Historians insist that she was ugly, but again, her portraits are generally attractively gamine.

    [image=http://cdn.wn.com/pd/40/a0/db98aa72e132a3c3b2ea59f112cf_grande.jpg]

    Charlotte when young. She was about 7 years younger than George, and about 17 when they got married. They would have 15 children.

  25. darthdrago Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Dec 31, 2003
    star 4
    How many of their kids survived to adulthood? The listing in your post doesn't say. (George IV obviously, but I'm too lazy to bother looking up the rest.) :p