WI: Frederick, Duke of York remarries?

Hmm - some interesting questions off of this.

Doing some research with the aid of the excellent A. N. Wilson, he suggests that in 1817 the Duke of York was "deeply involved with a middle-aged mistress" - something that might be a road block if only I could figure out who she was? The Duke of York seems to have cut off relations with his only famous mistress, Mary Anne Clarke (she of the commission selling and the caricatures) in 1811, so I don't know if this is just some confusion with dates on Wilson's part?

Also, more incidentally interesting, Wilson suggests that the Duke of Kent was considering a princess of Baden (probably Amalie, born 1795) as an alternative to Victoria of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld. (Amalie of Baden did marry in 1818 though, putting her out of the picture as a later contender).

Some more points - a biographical memoir of the Duke suggests that

firstly - the Duke had serious "spasmodic" (I think respiratory) issues for the last four years of his life that made it hard for him to breathe lying down, and that he was essentially an invalid since 1826 (so I don't know if kids after 1823/4 are terribly possible)

secondly (and this is also an unrelated thing, but George IV apparently almost drowned in 1820 - this would have made Frederick, King, although it's still doubtful whether he would have been any more likely to remarry because of this)

Just based on the health issues - I'm increasingly skeptical whether Feodora would have worked - the time window to get married and have a child in 1823/1824 is either slim or non-existent - I'm not rejecting the idea off hand, just wondering if there are any other candidates people can think of (I can still see Auguste of Reuss getting in one last matchmaking success with the Duchess of Kent's cousin, but who knows) - or if we really do have to thread the needle on this one?

I can't find anything on any other major mistresses after 1811, so I am going to make the assumption that either we're missing key information or he's wrong, but in this case I'm going to go with the other person being wrong just for the sake of the scenario. Who knows, maybe Frederick was shaking up with some nice older lady in the last 1810's and would never have dreamed of marrying again. But let's just say he's available.

The health thing is something I can't find much on, but then again I didn't look very hard. However, if that is an issue, he's free fro 1820 onwards, so if we have Elizabeth of Clarence survive until late 1822, then early in 1822 we have the marriage, and in late 1822 we have Prince Frederick George Charles of York, with his mother at the tender age of 15. By 1824, we can have the two sons be born and the Duchess is a widow 3 years later, at the age of 20.


Prince Frederick, Duke of York and Albany (b.1763: d.1827) m. Feodora of Leiningen (b.1807) (a)

1a) Frederick George Charles, I of the United Kingdom (b.1822)

2a) Mary Elizabeth Anne of Clarence (b.1823: d.1826)

3a) William Augustus Octavius, Duke of York and Albany (b.1824)
Now we have something something interesting to consider here. Reportedly, Feodora was a handful of a young woman who loved to party and had to be married off to keep her reputation, as her mother saw it. Now she can't be married off if her son is the next King, can she? So do we see her partying it up at court, separating herself from her mother and keeping the power behind her sons entirely in her hands. In fact, if she truly does manage to keep herself seperate from the Duchess of Kent, she might be the one to shut down marriage talks for a match between her sister and son.
 
This is one of the rare cases where the would-be regent is almost young enough to need a regent herself! (I could see Feodora being the one to shoot down the proposal certainly - hmm. Think she'll try to keep the children away from her mother? - She's going to have a much harder time constructing her own version of the Kensington system if she's much younger and out partying - I could see maybe some young Duke becoming a John Conroy, or honestly - Prince Fred might end up somewhat neglected, although hopefully him and his brother are close. You have any thoughts on how it could play out?
 
Last edited:
This is one of the rare cases where the would-be regent is almost young enough to need a regent herself! (I could see Feodora being the one to shoot down the proposal certainly - hmm. Is she going to be in a position to remarry herself do you think or has that sort of thing died out with the Tudors?)

I could definitely see her remarrying. It would definitely weaken her position, but a remarriage to some English Lord, perhaps a handsome young one that keeps her happy but isn't a real threat to the King. If she marries around 1835, when her son is around 13, then she'd definitely be moved into a less powerful position, perhaps even losing access to her sons. However, if she remarries to another Duke (maybe even a later marriage to the Duke of Cambridge's son around 1835), which would definitely strengthen her position.
 
I could definitely see her remarrying. It would definitely weaken her position, but a remarriage to some English Lord, perhaps a handsome young one that keeps her happy but isn't a real threat to the King. If she marries around 1835, when her son is around 13, then she'd definitely be moved into a less powerful position, perhaps even losing access to her sons. However, if she remarries to another Duke (maybe even a later marriage to the Duke of Cambridge's son around 1835), which would definitely strengthen her position.

Except that the king's mother needs assent from the Privy Council to re marry, and the minute she DOES remarry, she immediately forfeits her title, the money attached to it, and custody of her kids (Feodore, Dowager Duchess of York, My Lady, the King's Mother, to Feodore Smith, Baroness Smithfield is a big jump).
 
I could definitely see her remarrying. It would definitely weaken her position, but a remarriage to some English Lord, perhaps a handsome young one that keeps her happy but isn't a real threat to the King. If she marries around 1835, when her son is around 13, then she'd definitely be moved into a less powerful position, perhaps even losing access to her sons. However, if she remarries to another Duke (maybe even a later marriage to the Duke of Cambridge's son around 1835), which would definitely strengthen her position.
Hmm - as for the age thing, what if we compromise a bit; she marries in 1824 but Frederick's health does rally a bit with having a family, so a Duke of York in 1826 or 1827 is reasonable.
 
Except that the king's mother needs assent from the Privy Council to re marry, and the minute she DOES remarry, she immediately forfeits her title, the money attached to it, and custody of her kids (Feodore, Dowager Duchess of York, My Lady, the King's Mother, to Feodore Smith, Baroness Smithfield is a big jump).

Marry the Duke of Cambridge's son I repeat. She's only be late 20's, to his late teens. 12 years is a big gap, but I can see Cambridge going for it if just to keep himself relevant to a Regency where he's gonna have less of a position. He was dutiful, but Adolphus was also ambitious and wanted his line on the throne as much as Kent or any other of the Georgian Dukes. If he can make his line at least seem more senior, than great. It helps Feodora was quite beautiful, so the son shouldn't be complaining.
 
A remarriage is going to cause problems - politically a British Peer would be disastrous given most of them would be seen as belonging to either the Whigs or the Tories *by the way the regency act will probably exclude her is she remarries a Catholic* and a foreigner will almost certainly mean her forfeiting custody of her son and the regency.
She is also going to have to deal with the Reform Crisis on the back of the Catholic emancipation row a lot for her to deal with. Given her age I can see her getting a regency council to "advise her" etc but its make up is anyone's guess and it could effectively be a smaller version of the privy council (possibly a couple of senior clergymen, Clarence as the nearest adult male heir to the throne and so on). Unlike William IV she might well move her family straight into Buckingham Palace when its finished (William was keen to give it away to anyone who wanted). She is going to be a young woman and it might spark "talk" if she does not take her mother and sister with her although she has been a married woman.
Given Victoria is now no longer close to the throne her mother is going to not perhaps impose such a rigid childhood and with her sister as Regent her later childhood might actually be more pleasant given her mother might be far more interested in her grandchildren the King and his siblings and telling Feodora what she should do. Conroy's interest was largely in his own potential influence so he might fade from the Duchess' life. A source of contention will probably be the income of the Duchess of Kent - her husband left enormous debts (Victoria paid them off on her accession) and her income was pretty minimal as his widow (she got more money when it became apparent Victoria would most likely succeed which won't apply in this situation).
There might be pressure to have the Duchess of Kent replace Feodora as regent as well if she is seen as too young however much depends on her relationship with her young son's governments and how she acts. Her strongest asset initially will be the fact that George III's sons were so unpopular no-one was going to push for them to replace her as regent (although Clarence was better regarded).
Feodora will also only be 33 when her son comes of age in 1840 which gives scope for a remarriage and a second family then perhaps if she lasts the course as regent etc.
 
Hmm - some interesting questions off of this.

Doing some research with the aid of the excellent A. N. Wilson, he suggests that in 1817 the Duke of York was "deeply involved with a middle-aged mistress" - something that might be a road block if only I could figure out who she was? The Duke of York seems to have cut off relations with his only famous mistress, Mary Anne Clarke (she of the commission selling and the caricatures) in 1811, so I don't know if this is just some confusion with dates on Wilson's part?

Also, more incidentally interesting, Wilson suggests that the Duke of Kent was considering a princess of Baden (probably Amalie, born 1795) as an alternative to Victoria of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld. (Amalie of Baden did marry in 1818 though, putting her out of the picture as a later contender).

Some more points - a biographical memoir of the Duke suggests that

firstly - the Duke had serious "spasmodic" (I think respiratory) issues for the last four years of his life that made it hard for him to breathe lying down, and that he was essentially an invalid since 1826 (so I don't know if kids after 1823/4 are terribly possible)

secondly (and this is also an unrelated thing, but George IV apparently almost drowned in 1820 - this would have made Frederick, King, although it's still doubtful whether he would have been any more likely to remarry because of this)

Just based on the health issues - I'm increasingly skeptical whether Feodora would have worked - the time window to get married and have a child in 1823/1824 is either slim or non-existent - I'm not rejecting the idea off hand, just wondering if there are any other candidates people can think of (I can still see Auguste of Reuss getting in one last matchmaking success with the Duchess of Kent's cousin, but who knows) - or if we really do have to thread the needle on this one?

EDIT: Huh, one bizarre suggestion - what if Victoria/Leopold marry Frederick off to their sister Juliane (aka Duchess Anna Fyodorovna of Russia)? She's charming, legally separated from Duke Konstantin as of 1820 (with European courts being more sympathetic to her over him in the dispute I think) - and I don't think her illegitimate children are widely known. If she visits the U.K. in say 1821 then Victoria and Leopold have every reason to push for her to marry Frederick simply to get more of a stranglehold over the royal dukes (and in this case presumably without an intention to displace Victoria). A child at 39 is unlikely but her sister Sophie had a son Arthur at 38 so it's certainly possible (and the child would have some probability of being secretly illegitimate). Thoughts? (Or it could always be a Coburg niece to be fair.)

It wasn't Amalie of Baden, it was her oldest sister, Katharina (twin of the Queen of Bavaria) that was considered if you believe her German wiki. Apparently, Katharina is one of those great what-if brides. She was considered for the duc d'Enghien, but then the Revolution happened, her aunt, the Queen of Prussia attempted to arrange a marriage with Friedrich Wilhelm III, but neither liked the other much. One of George III's sons made a play for her just before she left for Russia where SHE was intended for Alexander I, but he chose her sister instead. Then after she returned to Baden, there was talk of her marrying Prince Friedrich of Dessau. When HRE Franz II was widowed for the second time, he contemplated marrying Amalie, and even after he mardried Maria Ludovica d'Este he toyed with the idea of marrying her to the duke of Teschen. Baden wasn't sure about an Austrian match since they feared it might upset relations with Napoléon, although the emperor was indifferent to it.

The idea to marry her to the duke of Kent originated with Franz II, but Edward found her unappealing (plus she was 40years old). And after he left without proposing, the Badenese court felt snubbed by St. James'; however the last marriage peoposal was in 1818, after her brother had no sons, she was supposed to marry her uncle (Ludwig I), but because of his ongoing affair with an actress neither side looked forward to it, and the matter was eventually dropped.
 
Thanks! My mistake w/ Baden then. How much money are the new Duchess of York and her husband going to be getting anyway do you think? (Frederick was voted a substantial amount of money the first time but circumstances are rather different now)
 
Thanks! My mistake w/ Baden then. How much money are the new Duchess of York and her husband going to be getting anyway do you think? (Frederick was voted a substantial amount of money the first time but circumstances are rather different now)

It'd still be quite a lot. The death of Kent meant that the heir was female, and while there wasn't as much anti-female rule, a male heir means Hanover doesn't need to seperate from the Personal Union.
 
Based on the Kents - the Duke got an extra 6,000 a year for the Duchess I believe - her income was never really enough as a widow she got another 6,000 a year for the education of her daughter (who was high in the succession at this point) as did the Cumberland's for the education of their son. On Victoria's accession and in the new civil list her income was again made up and she was on around 30,000 a year. I believe the Royal Duke's had something between 20 and 25,000 a year charged on the British civil list.
Frederick had on his first marriage been granted around £18,000 a year plus around £7,000 a year from Irish revenues his estate at his death was valued at around £180,000. Assuming the new Duchess of York remains in the King's good books - her income is going to be pretty substantial (depending on Frederick's debts) - I would guess she will be also granted additional grants for the education of her children etc. The Duchess of Kent's poor relationship with George IV will possibly have an impact - Frederick got on with his brother so suspect he won't have much time for his mother in law who on Frederick's death is going to hope that her widowed daughter might help her out financially.
 
So dislike for the Duchess of Kent is going to lessen probably how much money Feodora gets? (On a side note-at what age would the younger son be given a Dukedom? If it's before George IV's death, would he be created something other than the Duke of York?)
 
The eldest will automatically succeed to Frederick's titles - so George, 2nd Duke of York and Albany, 2nd Earl of Ulster until his accession to the throne in 1830 - his younger brother and sister will be born as His/Her Highness (like their cousin Victoria) - George IV raised all his nephew and nieces to Royal Highness in the 1820s - the younger brother can't be Duke of York and Albany until his brother's accession - so George IV might let it lie and not grant him a title - simply HRH Prince xxx of York and Albany.

I suspect Feodora's income (based on Frederick's and any upgrade for her children) will be quite adequate for her and her children - she is the mother of the heir to the throne and if she gets on okay with George IV I don't see why Parliament won't approve payments to her - largely depends on what she does about any of Frederick's debts if he leaves them which is quite likely. I could see her being on around £30,000 a year in the late 1820s - depending on the costs of her household etc that is quite manageable - on her son's accession she will be granted considerably more as Regent and will be very well off on her son's majority. It is possible that she will be given a similar income to a Queen Dowager in those circumstances (Queen Adelaide received £100,000 a year after William IV's death).

Dislike and arguments certainly dictated the income granted to George III's sons during the 18 teens and 20s - Cumberland for example was not given money when he married, Clarence refused extra (because Parliament wouldn't go for what was initially requested), the Duchess of Kent (and Conroy) did actually do better in the 1820s because of Victoria's position as likely to succeed (the same time she got more so did Cumberland for his son but that was not without controversy) - the Kent income was raised again on William IV's accession because Victoria was heiress (her financial difficulties were really down to the amount of debt Kent left). Parliament technically had to authorise the crown to make the payments to members of the Royal family - it was embarrassing and hugely divisive and always would be - Victoria had battles over the income for Prince Albert, Parliament was resentful and distrustful because Prince Leopold had been granted a very large income which he kept even after becoming King of Belgium (though he did return some of it), they also resented Cumberland receiving revenues as a Prince of Great Britain after he became King of Hannover.
One problem about these payments were that over time they dropped in value for example when the Duke of Cambridge died his children were very badly off - because much of what the Duke left was committed to pensions for his former servants, his widow, and his charitable causes - that's why Parliament was asked to make provision for the 2nd Duke of Cambridge (who it was claimed only had his army income), and his sisters (they had fiercely argued about provision for Princess Augusta when she married the Duke of Mecklenburg-Strelitz)

So dislike for the Duchess of Kent is going to lessen probably how much money Feodora gets? (On a side note-at what age would the younger son be given a Dukedom? If it's before George IV's death, would he be created something other than the Duke of York?)
 
So Feodora should be able to support herself. Hmm - based on Feodora's inclination to break free from the Kensington system IOTL, I can't really see Prince George growing up with as secluded as upbringing as Victoria - but is the lifestyle of the royal dukes going to wear off on him, or perhaps more importantly, Frederick's strong opposition to Catholic emancipation and reform?
 
He is going to be largely oblivious to his father's views i would think given his age at Frederick's death - so much will depend on his tutors - and he is going to be King at 8 - so his education and the focus of those around him is going to be one of duty, the importance of his position etc - Like Victoria I suspect there will be considerable focus on ensuring the King and his siblings don't grow up to be like their father and uncles. Arguably a long minority with a youthful regent is going to probably give the Government a bit more freedom to dictate to the regent which will remove Clarence's concerns over reform that he expressed as King. Feodora's political leanings and opinions are unknown so could go either way - who are her ladies does she lean to the Whigs as Victoria did initially or is she a natural Tory? To be honest though the days of monarch's dictating to governments is over even William IV realised that.
 
He is going to be largely oblivious to his father's views i would think given his age at Frederick's death - so much will depend on his tutors - and he is going to be King at 8 - so his education and the focus of those around him is going to be one of duty, the importance of his position etc - Like Victoria I suspect there will be considerable focus on ensuring the King and his siblings don't grow up to be like their father and uncles. Arguably a long minority with a youthful regent is going to probably give the Government a bit more freedom to dictate to the regent which will remove Clarence's concerns over reform that he expressed as King. Feodora's political leanings and opinions are unknown so could go either way - who are her ladies does she lean to the Whigs as Victoria did initially or is she a natural Tory? To be honest though the days of monarch's dictating to governments is over even William IV realised that.
A shame really considering how farcical some governments have been
 
I guess it just seems like if Feodora's motivation OTL was to try to live it up during the regency, it's hard to see why once she gets her own household she's going to stick to her mother's seclusiveness.
 
Top