WI: The Prince of Wales' Catholic Marriage Disinheritance

As everyone knows George IV married Maria FitzHerbert (a Roman Catholic), despite the fact that the Act of Settlement expressly forbade the marriage of anyone in the line of succession to do so, and if they did, they were excluded; plus after a spate of rash marriages, George III had introduced another law that said that all marriages in the royal family had to be subject to the king's approval.

I'm actually surprised this hasn't come up before (at least that I can find), but what if the PoW gets kicked from the succession for marrying a Catholic. Maybe news of the marriage gets out, or something. Either way, Frederick, duke of York is now the heir presumptive. How does this change history? Can it change history?
 
As everyone knows George IV married Maria FitzHerbert (a Roman Catholic), despite the fact that the Act of Settlement expressly forbade the marriage of anyone in the line of succession to do so, and if they did, they were excluded; plus after a spate of rash marriages, George III had introduced another law that said that all marriages in the royal family had to be subject to the king's approval.
I'm actually surprised this hasn't come up before (at least that I can find), but what if the PoW gets kicked from the succession for marrying a Catholic. Maybe news of the marriage gets out, or something. Either way, Frederick, duke of York is now the heir presumptive. How does this change history? Can it change history?


In the 1770's, George III passed a law stating that any member of the Royal Family must receive "Royal Consent" else it be automatically invalid (due to his brother's unapproved marriage), so any ceromony the Prince of Wales (eventual George IV) agreed to with Maria legally never happened in the eyes of Britain.

A more accurate question is how George III would react to the scandal taht his son defied him. Perhaps he'd demand his son reliquish his place in the succession just out of principle. They'd never really gotten along. HIs second son was the favorite and George IV was an embarrassment most of his life. At various times, the nation would have been glad to get them out of the way.

If George IV tried this after this father's final illness and his regency in 1810 to 1820 (unlikely as George IV had grown up a bit by that point and had no intention of giving up the crown), Parliament would demand he abdicate.

Same as they would if he had married a Catholic during his reign.

It was a non-starter.
 
In the 1770's, George III passed a law stating that any member of the Royal Family must receive "Royal Consent" else it be automatically invalid (due to his brother's unapproved marriage), so any ceromony the Prince of Wales (eventual George IV) agreed to with Maria legally never happened in the eyes of Britain.

I could be misunderstanding, but isn't that law only restrictive for those under the age of 25? After that they simply need the Privy Council's permission (or somesuch). I seem to recall reading somewhere that Princess Amelia planned to wait for her 25 so she could marry FitzRoy since she knew her dad would never approve.
 
Yup under the act "any member of the Royal Family over the age of 25 who had been refused the sovereign's consent could marry one year after giving notice to the Privy Council of their intention to so marry, unless both houses of Parliament expressly declared their disapproval."

It isn't clear to my mind, and I am sure that someone will have a more accurate view, whether that would mean the marriage and any issue would be valid in British law and retain their rights of succession.
 
Of course, it should be noted that the Prince of Wales's union with Mrs. Fitzherbert WAS a known entity to George III to the point of the latter actually pensioning the woman even if he refused to acknowledge her as his daughter-in-law [and it seems he and Queen Charlotte actually liked her as a person]. George III simply waited out Prinny's spendthrift ways getting him into such deep debt that even his royal connections and being a heartbeat from the throne weren't enough to keep the creditors at bay. Hence George III made a bargain to pay off his heir's debts in exchange for Prinny marrying the Suitable Protestant Princess bride of George III's choice[his own niece] whilst everyone pretended the marriage between Prinny and Mrs. Fitzherbert was invalid or had never happened. It's interesting that even though the Prince of Wales had been notoriously unfaithful to Mrs. Fitzherbert and had already moved onto to more permanent mistresses even before the Brunswick Stew, he made several declarations that he considered Mrs. Fitzherbert to be the wife of his heart AND he wore her miniature on his neck and insisted on being buried with it after he became king.
If the Prince of Wales had somehow learned to even try to live within his means, he may have been willing to risk losing his place of succession for Mrs. Fitzherbert even if he wasn't willing to be faithful to her.
 
Of course, it should be noted that the Prince of Wales's union with Mrs. Fitzherbert WAS a known entity to George III to the point of the latter actually pensioning the woman even if he refused to acknowledge her as his daughter-in-law [and it seems he and Queen Charlotte actually liked her as a person]. George III simply waited out Prinny's spendthrift ways getting him into such deep debt that even his royal connections and being a heartbeat from the throne weren't enough to keep the creditors at bay. Hence George III made a bargain to pay off his heir's debts in exchange for Prinny marrying the Suitable Protestant Princess bride of George III's choice[his own niece] whilst everyone pretended the marriage between Prinny and Mrs. Fitzherbert was invalid or had never happened. It's interesting that even though the Prince of Wales had been notoriously unfaithful to Mrs. Fitzherbert and had already moved onto to more permanent mistresses even before the Brunswick Stew, he made several declarations that he considered Mrs. Fitzherbert to be the wife of his heart AND he wore her miniature on his neck and insisted on being buried with it after he became king.
If the Prince of Wales had somehow learned to even try to live within his means, he may have been willing to risk losing his place of succession for Mrs. Fitzherbert even if he wasn't willing to be faithful to her.

Actually the Prince of Wales is the one who suggested Caroline of Brunswick, not George III. From what I've read in Princesses by Flora Fraser, the Prince's decision to get married seems to have taken most of the family by surprise. As for losing his place in succession, I doubt it. The Prince loved the trappings of Royalty and Monarchy to much to give up the throne over a woman.

Plus, according the the Royal Marriages act, he was never married. Without the Sovereign's consent or the de facto approval of Parliament such a marriage would have never existed in legal terms. At most, if George never married a royal, we would probably see something similar to Louis XIV and Madame de Maintenon, Elizabeth of Russia and Alexey Razumovsk (and possibly Catherine the Great and Grigory Potemkin, depending on the source): an unacknowledged but well known marriage. Maybe if they were still together when he ascended Mrs. Fitzherbert would be made a Duchess and could possibly influence George IV in favor of Catholic emancipation.

Really though, publicly acknowledging the marriage between Wales and Fitzherbert would end up causing a big scandal that would damage the prestige of the Monarchy, the Government and George III himself. Neither the Whigs or the Tories would really win anything by doing so. So it would never happen.
 
What were the political differences between George IV and the Duke of York? George was a Whig in opposition, but seemed to be a secret moderate Tory, as he always came up with excuses to keep them in power. The Duke of York was a military man, so perhaps was more conservative?
 
Sorry to revive an old thread, but I was reading something about Prinny's Brunswick marriage that made me wonder about it.

It seems that the duke of York who married before George (in 1791) was an indirect cause for Georgie Porgie's marriage. From what I can think, they seem to have had a sort of Gustav III-Carl XIII agreement, since it was only in 1794 after it became clear that the Yorks wouldn't have children that George gave his go-ahead for the marriage negotiations.

What happened in 1794? A failed pregnancy of the duchess of York? I can't seem to find anything to support that. And besides the relative estrangement from her husband, there doesn't seem to be any cause cited for why 1794 meant that they would never have children (they'd only been married for 3 years, and she was only 27. Granted, no spring chicken, but surely menopause couldn't have been setting in already?)
 
Top