PC: George IV and Prince Frederick removed from the succession

Rush Tarquin

Gone Fishin'
"In 1786, George III learns that his eldest son George, Prince of Wales, has secretly married a Catholic, Lady Fitzherbert. The Royal Marriages Act of 1772 is expanded to state that if the heir to the throne marries in secret and to a Catholic, he or she is removed from the line of succession and the marriage is rendered void. In 1793, Prince Frederick secretly marries Lady Augusta Murray, daughter of the Catholic Earl of Dunmore, thereby also removing himself from the succession to the throne."

Are the above events plausible?
 
the royal marriage act doesn't need to be expand, its a matter of how it was handled under the act of settlement or the marriage act George IV could well have been barred from the throne, that said there was no political will for such an act, the Whigs hushed it up as best the could, even straight up lying in Parliament to claim no marriage had happened and The Prince of Wales had no relationship with Maria Fitzherbert

likewise if there had been the will Duke of Sussex might have been removed for his illegal marriage, though thats more fuzzy the logic used for the Prince of Wales' first marriage was that the Marriage Art said that no one in the line could get married with out the monarch's blessing, they took that to mean not that it was a crime to do so, just that it means you're not married, you could just as easily say it was a crime punishable by removal from the line ie if you got married it meant you were out
 

Rush Tarquin

Gone Fishin'
the royal marriage act doesn't need to be expand, its a matter of how it was handled under the act of settlement or the marriage act George IV could well have been barred from the throne, that said there was no political will for such an act, the Whigs hushed it up as best the could, even straight up lying in Parliament to claim no marriage had happened and The Prince of Wales had no relationship with Maria Fitzherbert

likewise if there had been the will Duke of Sussex might have been removed for his illegal marriage, though thats more fuzzy the logic used for the Prince of Wales' first marriage was that the Marriage Art said that no one in the line could get married with out the monarch's blessing, they took that to mean not that it was a crime to do so, just that it means you're not married, you could just as easily say it was a crime punishable by removal from the line ie if you got married it meant you were out

So is there a POD in terms of political feasibility which could get them removed from the succession for their marriages?
 
So is there a POD in terms of political feasibility which could get them removed from the succession for their marriages?

hard to say, the Prince of Wales' illegal marriage was in 1785, and to have Parliament bail him out he agreed to break it off in 1787, in summer 1788 King George III went mad, the first time, Prince George was very close to the head of the Whigs Charles James Fox, his father like Tories better, and loathed Fox, during most of the 1780s William Pitt the Younger was PM Pitt was George III's pick and a Tory, in OTL when the King went Mad first Pitt tried to cover it up, and than when that wasn't going to fly every one agreed a Regency, now while both Fox and Pitt agreed there really was no one else but the Prince of Wales, Fox believed that the PoW could speak for his Father absolutely, of course Pitt knew the second Prince George was de facto king he'd make Fox PM, so he supported a regency bill that would have spelled out the Prince of Wales' powers

so say the King goes loopy earlier and stays mad like he did 1810, or lest for a long time, Pitt in a shaky political spot with Fox and the Prince of Wales closing in on him pulls the nuclear option and goes public with George's Catholic Marriage, throws everything out of whack, the thing gets out of his control and the Prince of Wales looses his spot.
 
Now, this is a very interesting question.

It is clear that anyone who "shall marry a Papist" is barred from succession and heritance of the Crown (by the Bill of Rights 1688/9, Not the Act of Settlement 1701, as often said. The latter merely repeated the prohibition on Papist marriages ,and referred the penalties thereof to the earlier act).

But, the Royal marriages Act 1772, declares that if any descendant of Sophia, being also a descendant of Geo II, who shall marry (anyone) without the consent of His Majesty .. declared in Council.. entered in the books.. etc ; then ... every marriage, or matrimonial contract, of any such descendant, without such consent first had and obtained, shall be null and void, to all intents and purposes whatsoever.

So, the question may be posited, if such a marriage is null and void to all intents and purposes whatsoever, then it is in fact, no marriage. The persons so purporting to marry are not in fact married at all, and the operation of the Act would be a good defense to a charge of bigamy should either of the persons later marry another person (with requisite permissions and consents), the other party still living.

It might therefore be submitted, that a marriage null and void for all purposes is null and void for the purposes of the Bill of Rights and Act of Settlement. The marriage between the PoW and Mrs FitzHerbert, being null and void , was no marriage, and therefore the Prince did not marry a Papist. Indeed, if this were not so, then the Prince's later marriage (with consent) to Caroline of Brunswick would have been bigamous, and the offspring of such 'marriage' (the quondam heir presumptive , Princess Charlotte), illegitimate.

It is possible that any revelation of the Fitzherbert relationship after 1797 would have been countered with an argument along these lines.

It must be said that the Royal Marriage Act is a most ill conceived and poorly drafted piece of legislation.
 
Last edited:
As regards the second part of the OP question, a possible marriage between Prince Frederick (presumably Frederick, Duke of York), to Lady Augusta Murray, this would seem problematic. HRH The Duke of York married Princess Frederica Charlotte of Prussia in 1791 , whilst Lady Augusta married , OTL, Augustus Frederick, later Duke of Sussex , in 1793 (the Duchess of York still living).

Lady Augusta did not come of age until 1789

So any (secret) marriage between the Duke of York and Lady Augusta would have to occur between 1789 and 1791. But arrangements for the marriage to Princess Frederica would have been under way well in advance, making it impossible to keep a prior marriage secret. Or else the Duchess of York must die soon after her marriage.

It is doubtful at any rate , whether lawful marriage (with consent under the R.M.A) to Princess Augusta would bar the succession of the Duke of York, since the marriage between Lady Augusta and Prince Augustus took place in an Anglican church, using Anglican rites. So it would appear that either Lady Augusta did not follow the religious persuasion of her father, or she was willing to convert . The religion of any of the parents of the contracting parties is not relevant to the various Acts.

(Or, did you mean Augustus Fredeick, not Frederick ?)

Incidentally,what is the evidence for assuming Lord Dunmore to be a Papist? He served as Royal Governor of Virginia, and as a Representative Peer, both of which would (in theory at any rate) have not been possible for a Papist .
 
Last edited:
George's and Frederick's marriages weren't legal marriages, as they were in contravention of the Royal Marriages Act 1772 - they had to obtain the monarch's permission for them. They didn't. Those 'marriages' were consequently legally null. You can't bar someone from the succession for being not-married.

For this and other reasons, no.
 
Last edited:
George's and Frederick's marriages weren't legal marriages, as they were in contravention of the Royal Marriages Act 1772 - they had to obtain the monarch's permission for them. They didn't. Those 'marriages' were consequently legally null. You can't bar someone from the succession for being not-married.


Well, possibly. But, with permission, I shall exchange places with m' learned brother, and argue the other case

Now, the Bill of Rights does not say "who is married to a Papist" or such words. It says "who.. shall marry a Papist".

One who goes through the form of marriage may indeed be said to marry , even if that marriage be declared null and void. In like case, the Marriage Act 1753 (Lord Hardwick's Act), made any marriage contracted by a minor without consent of parent or guardian void, but acknowledged that a marriage still took place . And indeed, the Royal marriages Act itself prescribes penalties for those officiating at such marriages and specifically acknowledges them as marriages.

And be it further enacted .. That every person who shall ..presume to solemnize, or to assist, or to be present at the celebration of any marriage .. without such consent .. shall,.. suffer the pains and penalties [of] praemunire ...

So, if one can suffer the penalty of praemunire, for solemnizing a marriage, without such consent, the principle parties must be said to marry, and in such case come under the provisions directed against those who "shall marry a Papist".

A nice point, if you will, but on such nice points lawyers wax fat.

This really is a most interesting question.
 
Last edited:

Rush Tarquin

Gone Fishin'
(Or, did you mean Augustus Fredeick, not Frederick ?)

Incidentally,what is the evidence for assuming Lord Dunmore to be a Papist? He served as Royal Governor of Virginia, and as a Representative Peer, both of which would (in theory at any rate) have not been possible for a Papist .

Whoops, conflated Frederick Augustus, Duke of York and Augustus Frederick, Duke of Essex. Nevermind. :eek: Didn't they ever get bored of using the same names again and again?!:D

At any rate, is there a legal distinction between a 'Papist' and a Catholic I'm not aware of? I read that Dunmore was a Catholic online, but all references seemed to have the exact same wording.
 
Whoops, conflated Frederick Augustus, Duke of York and Augustus Frederick, Duke of Essex. Nevermind. :eek: Didn't they ever get bored of using the same names again and again?!:D

His Royal Highness The Prince Augustus Frederick was the Duke of Sussex not Essex there are no Dukes of Essex, Essex is an Earldom, though funnily enough the current Earl (the 11th) is named Frederick.
 
...
At any rate, is there a legal distinction between a 'Papist' and a Catholic I'm not aware of? I read that Dunmore was a Catholic online, but all references seemed to have the exact same wording.

In the context of the time, yes. Technically Anglicans are Catholics (the BCP says "I believe in one holy catholic and apostolic church"). Papists were/are Roman Catholics- those acknowledging allegiance to the Pope. However, the situation is somewhat murky, since the term papist was often used pejoratively, and not all English "roman" catholics would have agreed that they had any allegiance to the Pope. After all Henry VIII certainly rejected the Pope , and equally certainly considered himself a good Catholic - he burned Papists and Protestants with equal ferocity. I use the term since the legislation uses it.

In practice 'Papist' could be considered to be anyone who would not take the Test Act, requiring (more or less), an oath repudiating transubstantiation and Papal supremacy, and acknowledging the King as Supreme Head of the Established Church. This was combined with a requirement to take Communion according to the Rites of the Church of England, thus also barring Dissenters.
 

Rush Tarquin

Gone Fishin'
His Royal Highness The Prince Augustus Frederick was the Duke of Sussex not Essex there are no Dukes of Essex, Essex is an Earldom, though funnily enough the current Earl (the 11th) is named Frederick.

Yet another example of Britain needing more diverse names damn them!
 
Just to add to your confusion, although Essex (oddly) has never been a Royal title, Sussex has , and the present Prince Edward, younger son of Her Majesty , is Earl (not Duke) of Wessex. That Wessex has not existed for around 1000 years is neither here nor there .

The names refer, of course, the the Kingdoms of (respectively) the East Saxons, the South Saxons, and the West Saxons. Why no North Saxons ? Don't go there.
 
Just to add to your confusion, although Essex (oddly) has never been a Royal title, Sussex has , and the present Prince Edward, younger son of Her Majesty , is Earl (not Duke) of Wessex. That Wessex has not existed for around 1000 years is neither here nor there .

The names refer, of course, the the Kingdoms of (respectively) the East Saxons, the South Saxons, and the West Saxons. Why no North Saxons ? Don't go there.

Prince Edward cribbed the title from the movie Shakespeare in Love, in which Colin Firth plays a Lord Wessex, of course latter Colin went on to play The Earl of Wessex's grandfather King George VI in The King's Speech
 

Rush Tarquin

Gone Fishin'
In the context of the time, yes. Technically Anglicans are Catholics (the BCP says "I believe in one holy catholic and apostolic church"). Papists were/are Roman Catholics- those acknowledging allegiance to the Pope. However, the situation is somewhat murky, since the term papist was often used pejoratively, and not all English "roman" catholics would have agreed that they had any allegiance to the Pope. After all Henry VIII certainly rejected the Pope , and equally certainly considered himself a good Catholic - he burned Papists and Protestants with equal ferocity. I use the term since the legislation uses it.

In practice 'Papist' could be considered to be anyone who would not take the Test Act, requiring (more or less), an oath repudiating transubstantiation and Papal supremacy, and acknowledging the King as Supreme Head of the Established Church. This was combined with a requirement to take Communion according to the Rites of the Church of England, thus also barring Dissenters.

Prince Augustus Frederick and Lady Augusta were first secretly married in Rome, so I thought there might have been an issue with that, but on second inspection it was a Church of England ceremony.
 
Its not always clear cut. There were people who in their own minds believed that Roman Catholicism was correct (technically, 'Papists'), but weren't hung up on it enough to sacrifice careers etc. So they went through the motions of complying with the Test Acts, with their fingers metaphorically crossed.

Then again there were other people, who were definite Anglicans, and didn't want a bar of the Pope, but who did like ritualistic ceremonial church services (100 years later they would have been Puseyites or Oxford movement supporters, 200 years later they would be Anglo-Catholics). These were often called 'Catholic' or 'Papist', though the 'charge' was without legal foundation.

Since both Augustus and Augusta were willing to take Anglican communion, his marriage to her would not have barred him under the Act of Succession- though the marriage was still invalid under the R.M.A
 
Top